Radek Stepanek Officially Joins Team Djokovic

[brokenshoelace]

You have to factor in the mental variable in that match up. Stan has only ever beaten Roger on clay. Saying Federer was lucky is as futile as saying he was unlucky many times against Rafa. At a certain point we just have to bow to the data

This place has become wayyyyyyyyyy too hellbent on nitpicking technicalities. You guys know what I mean, jeez.

"Basically, Roger was there for the taking and Stan failed to capitalize."

 

[mrzz]

"Lucky" is always unfair because matches are never won due to a single reason, and there are two opponents sharing the court (meaning someone would have to do something right, someone would have to do something wrong, etc...). Even if something insane happens like a terrible call by the lines-judge on a breakpoint or something, you can always argue that "lucky" or "unlucky" are unfair terms because there were plenty of other points played. In short, you know what I mean... I'm sure a Stan fan would call your assessment very one-sided (and it sort of is) because they can point out to Stan playing well below his level, and at some key points in the game, not through Roger's doing... Basically, Roger was there for the taking and Stan failed to capitalize. I guess that's a more diplomatic way of putting it.

Well, we'll need to find a Stan fan to begin with . Actually I think on this board I am closest thing to that available...

But seriously I think now we disagree. Federer won the first two sets fair and square. So, he could only "be there for the taking" in the last set. In this set Wawrinka had only two break opportunities, one in the third and one in the fifth game. The one in the third he was given zero chance of converting. The one in the fifth is the one I described above. So, yes, Federer at that point wasn't near the level he produced in other matches, but it is not like that set was completely in Wawrinka's racquet. On one hand, I see what you mean, on the other, he was never even in front and only produced two break opportunities (and it is not that he was playing like sh!t).

[Edit:] But, yes, around the middle of the last set Wawrinka was the one playing better tennis and in that sense he failed to capitalize.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, we'll need to find a Stan fan to begin with . Actually I think on this board I am closest thing to that available...

But seriously I think now we disagree. Federer won the first two sets fair and square. So, he could only "be there for the taking" in the last set. In this set Wawrinka had only two break opportunities, one in the third and one in the fifth game. The one in the third he was given zero chance of converting. The one in the fifth is the one I described above. So, yes, Federer at that point wasn't near the level he produced in other matches, but it is not like that set was completely in Wawrinka's racquet. On one hand, I see what you mean, on the other, he was never even in front and only produced two break opportunities (and it is not that he was playing like sh!t).

Yes, Federer was there for the taking in the final set, as he had looked pretty putrid in the 2 previous sets, seemed to be somewhat out of gas and playing completely out of sorts. Stan had outplayed him over those two sets and had the momentum. Wawrinka just didn't capitalize, his level actually dropped and gifted Federer a break (please let's not credit the opponent for a double fault. Yeah, Federer maybe was putting pressure on the return but a professional top 5 tennis player should be expected to put a second serve in play, period).

And again, this is a case of people nitpicking and completely missing the point. I didn't say Stan blew the match or choked. He was never in front. In fact, he was 2 sets behind. I'm saying after winning sets 3 and 4, against a pretty average Federer, he didn't capitalize. Moreover, this was a passing comment made in a post stating that this year is indeed not the best Federer has ever played... Not a careful examination of the match.

PS: Almost literally every Federer fan on this board states that "Nadal was there for the taking at Roland Garros in 2011 and Federer failed to capitalize" (pretty sure @britbox is a leading proponent of that theory, which has some merit). If I even begin to analyze what happened in that match, a match that didn't even go 5 sets, using the same above logic, it would be very easy to dissect that theory. Except, that theory is valid and the logic is somewhat flawed.

 

[mrzz]

@brokenshoelace , see my edit above (I wrote before I read your post). And, don't worry, I know we're just chatting about tiny details, I won't blow it out of proportion...

 

[Federberg]

This place has become wayyyyyyyyyy too hellbent on nitpicking technicalities. You guys know what I mean, jeez.

"Basically, Roger was there for the taking and Stan failed to capitalize."

Lol! Fair enough.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

"Matches are never won due to a single reason" I disagree with that brokenshoelace. I was losing a match 3-5 because I was hitting every ball to the corners and this opponent was deadly in the corners, able to hit winners cross court and up the line. Then I accidentally shanked a ball deep down the middle and he missed it a foot wide. I realized, wow, he never missed a ball in the corners but he's missed his only ball down the middle deep. Let me keep going deep down the middle. Guess what? I won the match 76 60. Another story I read was Jeff Borowiak said he was losing a match on grass and the ball kid said to him to go to net more. He listened to the kid and came back and won the match. Two examples where one single reason turns a match around. Surely there are hundreds more examples

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Wawrinka psychologically defers to Fed, most of the time they play he seems afraid to beat his big brother. He does not summon his emotional adrenaline to the optimum level. And when Stan does decide to push hard to beat Fed, well then he gets an earful from Mirka

 

[mrzz]

I was losing a match 3-5 because I was hitting every ball to the corners and this opponent was deadly in the corners, able to hit winners cross court and up the line. Then I accidentally shanked a ball deep down the middle and he missed it a foot wide. I realized, wow, he never missed a ball in the corners but he's missed his only ball down the middle deep. Let me keep going deep down the middle. Guess what? I won the match 76 60.

These damned moon-ballers, always trying to find an excuse for their shameful behavior....

 

[brokenshoelace]

These damned moon-ballers, always trying to find an excuse for their shameful behavior....

You're stirring up the pot... the Wozniacki fanbase will be outraged.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

I have been playing a former D1 player and he kept trying to hit me off the court by "stepping in" but my defense and counter punching was too strong. I won five days in a row of tiebreakers. Then he started "pushing" more and using high, neutral balls (moonballs or semi-moonballs) more instead of trying to step in and attack everything. And guess what? He tied me 3-3 and then beat me 4-3 yesterday so the moonballs and patient neutral balls worked in his favor. Trying to be all offense and blast me off the court didn't work. Mixing it up and using strategic moomballs worked better.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Scoop Malinowski writes: Anybody who refuses to use moonballs or Wozniacki style defense and patience has got to be a player of suspect success IMO. All players sub-professional ranks need to use it sometimes. As a way to change the rhythm of the match and or to try to take your opponent out of his/her rhythm.

 

[mrzz]

^Agreed, Scoop, but don't even think about trying to deny my prerogative of shaming everyone who even considered using a moon-ball once in his life.


(of course I do that too, but I punish myself with self inflicted lashes afterwards).

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Mrzz; My friend covers high school tennis in Bergen County NJ and he told me he saw a torturous match this year between a total moonballer and a go-for-broke winners player that lasted over four hours. Winner or balls into the fence or middle of the net. For over four hours. It's a good thing you were not there watching this match or the police would have probably been called

 

[Mastoor]

Hey, Mastoor, haven't seen you post about tennis in a while!

Innovations? I always wanted to see him playing with a one handed backhand! Seriously... did someone mention something specific? Or rather do you have some idea of what could it be?

Not a word about new things, except that he's trying new shoes, Asics. We will have to wait for Mubadala tournament to see the innovations. Luckily, it starts in 10 days.

 

[Busted]

I'm still trying to figure out this weird choice of Stepanek. And then Djokovic hires Craig O'Shaughnessy to crunch numbers for him? What's up with that? He really only has 2 players he needs to worry about - Nadal and Federer and he's got slight H2H advantages over each of them. So why the the numbers obsession? It's not going to help him volley any better or learn to shorten the points so that all his matches don't last 4 hours. Whatever. I think Nole is over-thinking this return. He should go out and play some matches before he panics with a bunch of stats.

 

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Djokovic having both Agassi and Stepanek on the practice court already in early January shows he's dead serious. For Agassi to go all the way from Vegas to Monte Carlo on the first Day of December speaks volumes. It shows Djokovic wants him there and it shows Agassi cares and wants to be there. Every minute, every details counts. Djokovic is clearly sending a very clear message to everyone: I'm all in for 2017 and I will do everything humanly possible to dominate and destroy like I did for three years.

Except that he's 3 years older, has a creaky elbow and won't eat red meat. Nobody can stop Father Time. See: Federer who can't paly every week anymore.

I happen to think Djokovic will be fine and probably win 2 Slams in 2018...but I do think he's going OTT with the stats guy. If he paid attention to any of the season after he called it quits last year - there ain't but 2-3 guys he really needs to worry about week-in and week-out...and 2 of them are older than he is and the 3rd is 10 years younger. Wait..I'll throw in Kyrgios since he gets pumped to play the Big 3. I don't even think he has to worry about Murray because he's always owned Murray.

 

[Mastoor]

He needs Stepanek because Agassi will be with him only in some tournaments. Besides, I think Agassi will be largely about strategic things, not with day to day training.

As for O'Shaughnessy, I am puzzled as well. However, that is not announced officially so could be just someone's speculation.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Djokovic also reached out to hire me to learn what books other players are reading and what are their favorite foods. I declined the substantial offer to focus on other obligations.

 

[Busted]

Well, we'll need to find a Stan fan to begin with . Actually I think on this board I am closest thing to that available...
.

I like Stan...but...come on...he's a great big head case and now that Magnus Norman has decided to quit and stay home with his family? Where's Stan's fragile mental state going to be? The fact that he didn't play after Wimbledon and only fell to #9 - tells you a lot about how few matches Stan wins outside of the Slams. And if he doesn't have someone guiding him through the Slams, then what's going to happen to his ranking? AFAIK he still hasn't hired another coach. He posted on Twitter last week that he was just starting to hit balls and work out, so is he even going to be ready in time to defend 720 points at the AO? Stan needs a coach who understands his psyche in the same way Kyrgios needs a coach who understand his psyche. Question is - who's that going to be?

 

[Busted]

He needs Stepanek because Agassi will be with him only in some tournaments. Besides, I think Agassi will be largely about strategic things, not with day to day training.

As for O'Shaughnessy, I am puzzled as well. However, that is not announced officially so could be just someone's speculation.

I know why he needs a 2nd coach...i just don't think that Stepanek is the right guy for Djokovic. He needs somebody with an edge and who knows what it takes to not only beat the best but BE the best. What was Stepanek's highest ranking - 8 for 1 or 2 weeks? Just not buying that he's a guy who'll make a difference when someone has much natural talent - and already knows how to win - as Djokovic.