Djokovic halts Federer, wins third major of year at U.S. Open

Novak Djokovic captured his third Grand Slam title of the year by beating Roger Federer in four sets on Sunday at the U.S. Open. Djokovic had previously triumphed at the Australian Open and Wimbledon in addition to a runner-up showing at Roland Garros.

Once again it took Novak Djokovic to stop a red-hot Roger Federer.

In a second consecutive Grand Slam final between the top two players in the world, Djokovic got the best of Roger Federer 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4 on Sunday night at the U.S. Open. The Serb committed 17 fewer unforced errors than his opponent (37 to 54) and he saved a whopping 19 of 23 break points before prevailing in three hours and 20 minutes.
Djoker wins
Not unlike at Wimbledon, where Federer also lost to Djokovic in a four-set title match, the Swiss rolled through his first six matches with hardly any trouble. At the All-England Club he had dropped only one set to Sam Groth. In New York, Federer had not lost a set and had been broken only once by Philipp Kohlschreiber. Fresh off a run to the Cincinnati title that included dominance of both Djokovic and Andy Murray, the 34-year-old was without question playing some of the best tennis of his illustrious career.

But in best-of-five situation in a major championship match, Djokovic came up with the goods as he often seems to do. The world No. 1 sent a message early by breaking twice in the first set. Federer earned one break of his own, but Djokovic sealed the deal with a clutch hold at 5-4.

As the break-point numbers suggest, Federer had his chances. The 17-time Grand Slam champion seized one at the tail end of the second set, breaking at 6-5 to level the match with a punishing cross-court backhand that Djokovic could not handle.
211-Roger
A crucial third set featured arguably the final turning point with Djokovic serving down 3-4. Having already squandered a break lead, the top seed had to fight off a break point to avoid a 5-3 deficit. After doing just that, Djokovic promptly capitalized on an opportunity of his own to scalp the Federer serve at 4-4. That allowed Djokovic to serve out set three at 5-4, capping off a sudden turnaround.

Federer showed brief signs of making an improbable comeback when he regained one of two breaks at 5-2 in the fourth. After an easy hold to stay alive, he even powered his way to a 15-40 opening on Djokovic’s second attempt to serve for the title. But Djokovic slammed the door, winning four consecutive points to finish the job.

“Of course there is a just a letdown and disappointment that I couldn’t push it 5-all,” Federer lamented. “And then who knows what happens?”

A fifth set, perhaps? Federer’s sixth U.S. Open title? We will never know, but what is certain is that the crowd wanted to see all of that transpire. Raucous from start to finish after finally getting what they came to see following a three-hour rain delay, the fans were 100 percent behind Federer and not afraid to show it–even cheering Djokovic errors on more than a few occasions.

“They were unbelievable tonight,” the former world No. 1 said. “Were they better than ever? Possibly. Was it louder than ever? Maybe. It was unreal…. To receive the crowd support that I did receive. I don’t consider that normal.”

What is not normal is the season Djokovic is enjoying, but three out of four majors is not unprecedented. He first did it in 2011 and has now done it again with triumphs at the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open. Djokovic came within one match of the calendar-year Grand Slam, as he fell only to Stan Wawrinka in the Roland Garros final.

“It’s been an incredible season,” the 10-time major champion assessed. “I’m very fortunate to experience a great success this year. The season is not over, but the Grand Slam is over. The biggest tournaments that I have played this year, I won three out of four. It’s more than I could ask for, definitely.”

[polldaddy poll=9075116]
[polldaddy poll=9075121]
[polldaddy poll=9075124]

199 Comments on Djokovic halts Federer, wins third major of year at U.S. Open

  1. Not a bad season overall for Djokovic I would say :).
    I didn’t him to win… but than again, I didn’t want Fed to win either so I’m just sour grapes about it.
    (But congrats to all Novak fans anyways)

    • yep…welcome to the club… 🙂

      I for one could not be happy about Novak wining mainly because I was hoping that if Fed stopped him now Novak would become beatable and less self-confident…Fed would prove to Rafa that even after a major slump one can get back to wining slams…but this match only proved that Novak remains the man to beat and if Rafa does not get to his best level Novak will just be unstoppable and will easily reach ‘Rafa’s records…

  2. Djokovic is not even pushed these days, that’s how good he’s become.
    It’s up to the others to catch up.
    Inevitably he’s going to slacken his output out of lack of competitiveness so that’s when (Rafa) others will have the chance to surprise him.
    Right now is hard to think of anyone beating him but things in sports, as you know, can change very fast and it’s all about the present; he (Djokovic) already has to defend his points for next season…. tennis, we’ve said it many times, must be one of the most mentally demanding games (tell that to Rafa).

  3. For nny: I don’t see where I mocked your picking Nole. Maybe I did somewhere. I did get a chuckle when you accused someone of having it both ways with their pick before ending your post by saying you’d sleep on it, that’s all. Maybe that was it.

    My bad obviously.

    Regardless, I’d like to sincerely apologize to you if I went too far with you as you were obviously offended.

    I’ll try to avoid any trash talk with you from now on.

    Please no hard feelings.

    • hawkeye,

      Since you reached out, I thought you deserved a response. It’s true that I did tell Mark he was trying to have it both ways when he made his pick. However, I also followed it up with another post telling him that I did not mean to criticize him for it. So he understood where I was coming from. Many were struggling with their prediction for this final.

      In my case, when I made my initial prediction of Novak in four or fives sets then you posted a hashtag response. I am not going to rewrite it here. You added an extra letter in the middle for emphasis. I noticed that you did not do that to anyone else who picked Novak. So I did feel hurt and embarrassed. I ended up making the mistake of over thinking it after the fact. I know now that I need to go with my initial gut feeling and stick with it. But can you honestly say that if Fed had won, then you wouldn’t have tried to gloat in my face over it after the fact?

      I have no problem with you or anyone else who picked Fed. It was not an unreasonable prediction, given how well he was playing. He looked better than he did at Wimbledon. It was easier for him to predict Novak winning at Wimbledon. This time was much harder. I think others here were also having a tough time and putting in caveats and “ifs”, “ands” and “buts”. But in the end, it’s all supposed to be in good spirits and fun. It’s not the end of the world if anyone is wrong.

      You know that it’s hard enough being a Rafa fan here and being able to say positive things about other players. It’s gotten better recently, but it can still be challenging. We have been on the same side where that is concerned. I may not like certain attitudes and actions of both Fed and Novak, but I really do respect them as players. Fed is still in there trying to win a slam and pushing himself to play even better. Novak has been able to consistently bring his best when it counts the most. I have been quite impressed by Novak this year. Of course, I wish it was Rafa who was fighting in slam finals. I can only hope that he comes back strong next year. But for now, we have been fortunate to watch two players who came out and gave it their all. So in the end, we are all winners.

      I accept your apology and thank you for reaching out to me.

  4. From SI’s Jon Wertheim:

    “The notion that (Rafa) needs a new coach is as simplistic as it is unlikely to happen. You know what he could use: a sports psychologist to change his risk-reward ratio. Too often Nadal is playing with caution, positioning himself deep in the court, playing passively—especially on the forehand side, especially deep in matches.”

    Yup.

    #NotRocketScience

  5. We are often in such awe watching the greats beat the hell out of each other for hours on end that sometimes it’s easy to overlook the enormous mental and emotional demands that it entails. As Shireling reminds us, no other sport demands quite so much.

  6. hawkeye63 says:
    September 14, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    “Broken when serving for the title and down 15-40 when serving it out in the last game.

    I think that qualified as being pushed.”

    It’s true that I posted this comment without having seen the match, it’s always closer than the score suggests and Fed had plenty of break opportunities. Still, it didn’t go to 5 sets.

  7. To quote a fan from another forum:
    “What’s so annoying though is that the highest level of tennis played thus far this year has been by Federer at Wimby, Cincy, and the USO (three or four matches in particular starting with that Murray SF) yet he didn’t win a slam. I don’t think I have seen that very often on the ATP tour if ever. He really can’t catch a break (no pun intended) in these finals which brings up a larger point that the defensive and safe tennis get Nadal and Djoko play allow them to be less dependent on court conditions because the court speeds are in their favor anyway. They will play the same way every time and everyone else has to play to beat them meaning they have to go for their shots and hope the conditions allow for it.”

    I think the result was set the moment two things came together: 1) The speed of Arthur Ashe, which even the players admit (ask Andy Murray after his loss) is slower than Armstrong, which, by itself is a medium paced court.
    2) The weather. The heat of the past couple of weeks was helping in speeding the conditions up a bit, even on Ashe. Usually, if Roger is attacking well during the entire tournament he carries that into the Final. But the moment there was a rain delay, he knew the conditions were going against him. It’s sad because there was a time when you couldn’t dream of defenders winning so much on HC and grass and now it’s like the new normal. Still, Roger’s overall play was excellent. It’s extremely difficult to commit to an attacking strategy, especially on important points and that was only amplified today. I don’t think Djokovic has figured out the SABR per se. In fact, Roger was also reading his serve extremely well unlike at Wimbledon. But that first strike on his FH side, and committed offense at the net let him down.
    I hope he comes out swinging freely next year. There’s really nothing quite like watching him use his complete arsenal and cover the entire geometry of the Court.
    I’ve been hearing a lot of fans say they’ll quit watching tennis if Roger goes and I bet that’s a big chunk of fanbase right there. Up to the organizers now but that crowd at the USO last night, is only the tip of the iceberg.

    • Nah, that particular fan talked as if Fed had never ever played in rainy weather! Its an insult to Fed, that his fans think that Fed couldnt win when the conditions didnt favor him. Dont forget, Fed swept up almost any event he played back during 2005-2006 except on clay because of Nadal. Dont tell me there’re no rain, no slow surfaces back then. Its further insult to the great Roger Federer that his fans think he can only win on quick surfaces.

      Fans have to be rational, Fed has past his prime and his best days are behind him now. Dont blame the weather, the court conditions or his opponents’ play now for his losses. Even if they quicken the courts to 1990s standard, Im also not sure Fed will be winning the big prizes when there may be another group of players troubling him, those with great athletism, big serves and big powerful FH and groundsrrokes, think Marin Cilic and Delpro.

      Fed already had his days under the sun, benefiting from the initial slowing of surfaces back during 2002 and he happened to adapt better than his fellow peers the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Nalby. Safin and Hewitt won the USO on quicker surfaces than Fed had done. He had already benefitted from the playing conditions back then, time for others to do the same now.

  8. All the talk about Serena and Nole 2.1 had a much better GS year. He actually had competition that was stronger and bigger than him at certain times. He actually had to play several top 15 players. The women’s game is tragic when 2 old Italians make the final. The men’s game is not terribly strong and Nole is above everybody. Don’t be surprised to see a Nole Slam or a Calendar Slam next year. Hello to all the Kool-Aid drinkers. 4-23

    • it might be…but then again, it might not…uncertainty rules…

      Serena was the favorite to win USO…and she failed…who would think so…and who was her ultimate conqueror: Roberta…Roberta who??…

      BTW, Novak had no competition at this USO…except for Fed in the finals he faced multiple nobodies…with Cilic with his current form, who was just a confidence boost for Nole, the Serb really has had an easy pass to the finals…it was just meant to be…

  9. Tennisfan just goes on about the same old we’ve been reading for years from Fed fans… As if his style is the way tennis ought to be plaid ant the rest is apocryphal…He lost, do u get it?

    • Amen! I am really tired of hearing the same old, same old dragged out over and over by disgruntled Fed fans. I think in another post even the mono thing was dragged up for the umpteenth time. Just when I thought we were done with that. Yet Fed fans have the nerve to say that Rafa fans make excuses? Please!

      Yeah, it was the weather, how about the roof, hey how about the lights? How about the three hour delay? Oh, it must have been something because Fed lost!

      Also, the disrespect for Novak and his style of play, along with Rafa and let’s throw in Murray, is just beyond the pale. “Defensive” and “safe” tennis from Rafa and Novak? In what universe? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or just sour grapes?

      Let’s be real here. Fed had what, 23 break opportunities in the match? How many did he convert? Let Fed fans think about that one. So did Novak fight off all those break points with defensive, safe tennis?

      The player who has played best this year is the one who has three slam titles, who won I don’t know how many Masters titles this year, who has maybe the biggest lead in the rankings and who is already guaranteed to end the year at #1 again. Consistency and raising one’s level of play when it counts the most, when the match is on the line, those are the qualities that describe the best player. In 2010 and 2013 it was Rafa.

      Fed fans need to deal with it. They should be happy that he is still playing and able to get to slam finals.

      • I wanted to make another comment about this kind of dismissive attitude towards players who defend well. Novak’s stellar defense had a lot to do with him winning the match. That was a big reason why Fed couldn’t convert most of his break chances. It’s true that he missed some shots that he should have made. But Novak made sure that the ball was always coming back one more time, forcing Fed to hit another shot and another. Novak also got his racket on some of Fed’s serves that would have been aces against any other player.

        Great defense can win matches. I don’t know why that concept still seems foreign to Fed fans. It’s not a bad thing to play great defense. I also don’t think that style of play is “safe”, whatever that means. Novak took chances, many times with his second serves when he wasn’t getting his first serves in. I was watching the scoreboard with the speeds and he was hitting some at 104 or 105 mph. That certainly helped him in tough situations.

        In no way do I agree that Fed is the one who’s played the best this year. What about when he was knocked out in the second round of the AO? What about getting knocked out in the quarterfinals of RG? It’s not like Fed’s been winning titles left and right this year. He did get the better of Novak in Cincy, on a lightning fast court that suits his game in a best of three set match. But at Wimbledon or the USO in a best of five set match, Fed isn’t going to be able to take out Novak at this stage of his career.

        Fed’s time has passed. He did well to get to two slam finals. But this time is for Rafa, Novak and Murray and even Stan and other young players.

    • Yes to that…… I can’t remember when I last missed so many consecutive nights sleep in order to watch a game of tennis!

      What is so strange is that neither my No.1 nor my runner up favourites were involved yet I felt compelled to stay up night after night. Guess it was the feeling this USO was make or break for Federer. I felt a similar nostalgia watching Fish and Hewitt making their farewell appearances.

  10. NNY: His fans have always taken their cue from Fed himself. He was the person who so readily dissed his opponents: who could never acknowledge he had been fairly and squarely beaten: closely followed by the Federazzi commentators, pundits et al.

  11. …you never know, I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility of Fed winning another slam. Djokovic is also human and could have a bad day.
    As for Nadal, let’s wait and see how he starts the season – I hope the Davis Cup gives him a boost of confidence or whatever it is he needs to come back.
    NNY, you’re completely right in what you say above but I would go further, I would say that Fed plays defensive tennis also very well – you defend your side of the net in many ways and Fed’s court coverage has been second to none. Also, when he smells blood he’s able to reach any ball as well as any.
    Nadal has been by far the player who’s more able to change momentum during a game, he passes from tentative to aggressive in a flash but, of course, this is always going to be dismissed by some.
    This defensive Vs attacking argument is totally void in my opinion. Just grasping at straws.
    For example, the same is said about Italian football (soccer) but they always go quickest to the goal if the situation demands it. I’m sure you can find many analogies in other sports. The only disciplines that penalise total passiveness are contact sports such as martial arts or boxing (I think).
    What counts at the end is to get the win because a week later nobody really cares how you got it.

    • exactly…Rafa always goes for the corners/lines thus more UEs this year…I thought sometimes if he was playing safer on some points he would have won it…the only thing is that now that his confidence is low he tends to go to “the shell” camping behind the baseline and making his game more defensive which allows his opponents to attack more consistently…

      Rafa’s tennis has always been pure combination of offense and defense and the value of his game is exactly in that quick transition that he has been able to employ during the match…except for Novak and maybe Andy to some extent, nobody is able to do it…

      • I agree about Rafa’s game. I never understood this business about defensive tennis being somehow inferior or lacking. As Shireling said above, Fed also can play defensive tennis. Something his fans seem to conveniently ignore. He can play baseline tennis, staying back and using his forehand and backhand to win rallies. It’s not as tough he is a S&V player. They have become almost extinct.

        Rafa has been brilliant with transitioning from offense to defense. I think Novak does that effectively, too.

        JMac has called Borg a backboarder. That’s another name for someone who can stand at the baseline and keep getting the ball back with great defense. In his day, there was no one better than Borg. But JMac did not use that word in a negative way. He was paying tribute to Borg’s incredible skill..

        Honestly, this faux argument from Fed fans is really just more sour grapes when their guy doesn’t win.

  12. When Nadal and Djokovic play each other I don’t see any safe tennis from either of them. Federer can’t cope with not being fed balls so that he can hit winners and look imperious that’s why he has trouble with Rafa, Novak and Andy.

    • I’ll respond to the other posts later. But SABR is about as attacking as anything can get. Getting to the service line mid-serve with absolutely no time to react to it and hitting a half volley off it? It’s ridiculous. I can’t even contemplate the enormity of the skill involved here. It’s what makes him the best player I’ve ever seen. He’s doing three or four things in a split second. Unreal. Also, Nadal doesn’t play offensive tennis. I have to laugh at the very suggestion but I’ll address it when I’m free.

      • ..but according to BB, players of his era did do that too. Were they better players than the players today? I dont see how Fed is any better than those players who were also doing it in the past era. Fed didnt have much success doing it anyway, he still couldnt beat Novak at a slam!

      • No one in BB’s era that I know has done it and that too with Roger’s frequency. In fact, that half volley was popularized by Agassi as a shot so I highly doubt BB is being honest in his assessment.

      • Read what I wrote again. What yo posted was a freak one-off at best. Roger is using it as a full-time strategy. Like I said, the best ever. 🙂

      • And, no, he’s employed it in a few matches since Cincy.

        Will likely be done with this gimmicky fad (which has been fiun while it lasted) by end of year once the novelty wears off.

        Federazzi are hilarious.

    • Sorry, but I find it a bit bush league. I know that the ESPN commies said it was legit, but I don’t like it. BB said how it would have been handled back in his day. They would have gone right at Fed to get him to back off.

      I am sure that Fed and his fans consider it the ultimate attacking ploy, but I don’t like it. With all the blathering on about it all week by the ESPN commies, it’s not like that shot really did much for Fed in the match. Also, Novak countered the tactic with some great lobs.

  13. nadline10 you must stop fooling others. Nadal only hit 30 winners vs Fognini in a 5 setter, that’s 6 winners per set hardly qualifies as aggressive tennis.

  14. 64aces says:
    September 15, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    nadline10 you must stop fooling others. Nadal only hit 30 winners vs Fognini in a 5 setter, that’s 6 winners per set hardly qualifies as aggressive tennis.

    What Nadal has been playing this season hardly counts even though he’s slowly improving.

    • I agree with Shireling. Let’s not pretend that Rafa has been anywhere near his best this year. So I think quoting stats as though they are actually representative of his game, is not accurate. He’s in a slump and everyone and his brother knows it.

  15. Of course I know he is in a slump this season. What separates Nadal from other defensive players is his ability to find winners. But the fact is he is a defensive player at heart and that’s why when his confidence is down or when the pressure is on he retreats to a very defensive style of play, hoping for the other guy to miss. Its a bit like Federer, Fed is a baseliner at heart, despite all the hype surrounding his SABR and net game, truth be told when the pressure is on Fed plays exclusively from the baseline and rarely comes to the net.

    • Not true about both Rafa and Fed.

      Rafa isnt or wasnt a defensive player at heart. I suggest you watch his matches of 2003 and 2004 and esp his match vs Fed at Miami 2004. You’ll find that Rafa back then played with an offensive mindset He didnt have a big serve so he had to rely on his groundstrokes to out maneuver his opponents before hitting a winner. He wasnt afraid to move to the net or paint the lines back then. It was after his successes on clay that he played further back from the baseline and started his successful defence/offence game. Watch how close to the baseline he played from during 2003-2004 on non clay surfaces.

      Fed started off during the S&V era and adapted his game to a baseline game when the courts became slower from 2002 onwards. Its on the slowed down courts back then that Fed had the most successes playing primarily from the baseline.

      As Fed and Rafa have their successes playing their respective ‘adapted’ and ‘adopted’ styles for so long, they have become their natural game. It takes efforts for Fed to find his old game , that of S&V and charging the net and he has done so successfully this year. It remains to be seen how long or how soon Rafa has to take to find that aggressive game that hes not afraid to play when hes just an upstart.

  16. Looks like the previous comment I made hasn’t gone in yet. Anyway, I’ll address SABR when I come to it. Suffice it to say that it’s among the very best things I’ve ever seen in tennis. And I’ve seen a lot of it and it’s about as offensive as it can possibly get. It’s absolute genius.

    Now to defense versus offense/ Nadal versus Fed/ Slow versus quick surfaces:

    1) To start off, Federer’s style of play is a classic all-court style with a preference to baseline given the time he’s playing in.

    2) No, I am not demeaning defenders or defense. I have no problem with that style of play. I’ve said before, that it has it’s place in tennis, but not across the board. That’s when it becomes a tangible disadvantage for anyone who plays a remotely attacking style.

    3) Nadal IS a defensive baseliner. To call him an offensive player is absolutely laughable. Of course defensive baseliners hit winners, what sort of an argument is that? Just because you hit winners from the back court doesn’t make you an offensive player. An offensive player thrives on taking time away from his opponent. Both Nadal and Djokovic need time to react to shots, particularly the serve. They’re both reactive players in that sense with Nadal being moreso. Of course he has excellent grounstrokes, knows when to pull the trigger in a rally and all that. But I called him defensive. Not passive.
    Wake me up when Nadal starts shortening points and attacking the net. I’ll call him offensive then.

    4) I have absolutely no idea which Nadal-Djokovic match contained offensive tennis. The only thing offensive about their matches is the amount of time wasted on court. Yeah, that’s really offensive as a viewer.

    5) @luckystar, what on earth are you tripping on? How did Federer benefit from slow courts? He was losing every where before 2003 regardless of surface speeds because he was a headcase who hadn’t tapped his talent. His style has always been all-court with a blend of pretty much everything you can throw in so to even suggest such a thing is absurd.

    6) It is a fact that Ashe plays slow and it was slower after the weather cooled off. In fact, Djokovic clearly alluded to this after the Cincy final pretty much playing that Fed would get no such advantage at the Open. At Fed’s age. these things matter or else why would Djokovic be so blatant about it? He knew he’d have the advantage from the get go.

    I guess that’s pretty much it.

    • A player like Delpo plays primarily from the baseline but no one would call him a defensive player. One can play from the baseline and still be called an offensive baseliner.

      Fed did benefit from the slowing down of the courts since 2002, winning all his slams after the courts were slowed down, not during the 1990s and so he switched to a baseline game with occasional net approaches and stopped playing his S&V game.

      Rafa was more offensive minded during 2003-2004. If you have never seen Rafa approached the net, then perhaps youve not been seeing his matches often enough. Why not watch his Miami 2004 match vs Fed for a start? Or went back further to 2003 Wimbledon when Rafa was a green horn and trying to play on grass and not afraid to rush the net albeit clumsily.

      As Ive mentioned in my earlier post, they both adapted to the changing conditions – Fed from a S&V based to a offensive baseline game with occasional net approaches; Rafa from an offensive baseline game with occasional net approaches to a defence/offense baseline game.

      • Man, I don’t think you’ve understood my point at all. Read what I wrote again. Nadal thrives on points lasting long-No aggressive player whatsoever does that. Delpo was actually very good at the net for his height when he was playing well, and thrived on keeping points short. If the predominant style of play today was that of an aggressive baseliners we wouldn’t be getting long-winded marathons at all. Delpo, Agassi, Safin are aggressive baseliners. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are defensive baseliners.

      • Also, Federer was losing on slow as well as quick surfaces before 2003 so your argument, like I already said is redundant. Your beating on it will not change that seeing as you aren’t backing yourself up with anything.

        Fed was and has always been an all-courter. Not a Sampraesque (post ’96) S&Ver and certainly not a true blue defender. Doesn’t matter where you put him. Also, Fed’s net approaches ae hardly ‘occasional.’ They’re in fact right out of what you expect an all courter to do- twice as many as Nadal or Djokovic I might add.

      • Delpo didnt always end points short. Also he didnt even venture to the net as often as Novak or even Rafa. Rafa has such deft touches at the net and he wins most points there when at the net. Watch Rafa vs Ferrer at Rome 2013 for example and see how often Rafa (and Ferrer) venture to the net.

    • Rafa vs Novak USO2010, Montreal 2013 are two good examples of their offensive game. Its not only Fed who’s capable of playing an offensive game.

      Watch Fed vs Rafa at Shanghai 2006, you wont call that defensive tennis even though both played from the baseline!

      • TennisFan, Fed started off playing S&V and that’s how he had beaten Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It was when they slowed down the courts that Fed turned into a baseliner. You talked as if Fed was charging the net all the time, he hardly did that since 2003!

        Why wasn’t he playing S&V tennis at Wimbledon from 2004 onwards? They changed the grass there in 2002, and so players like Henman was disadvantaged, not being able to adapt to the slower grass. Fed adapted the best among his peers and so he strived on a predominantly baseline game with opportunistic ventures to the net.

        It was until sometime after 2009 or 2010 that Fed realized he couldn’t stay with the younger crop playing from the baseline that he engaged Anacone to help him revamp his game to a more net charging one. As he wasn’t having much success after his 2012 Wimbledon win, he then engaged Edberg to further help him revived his net charging and S&V game.

        I wonder since when you started watching Nadal and Novak; they both started out playing more aggressive tennis, at least for Nadal off clay, and Novak used to playing paint the line tennis. To say that Nadal and Novak only starting points defensively is clearly an exaggeration. Watch Nadal during USO2010, and even some of his matches on clay during 2008/2010, or his FO 2013 vs Novak and Ferrer. Novak certainly wasn’t starting a point defensively during his Wimbledon match vs Delpo in 2013, having served 20+ aces.

      • Luckystar you do make good points here. I agree with everything you said. But like I said, Fed’s always been an all-courter. I never labelled him an S&Ver. I also completely agree with you that guys like Henman were at a much bigger disadvantage than Roger were when the initial slowdown happened.
        I also agree that Nadal/Djokovic can play offensive tennis on a good day. My argument is that it is not their style. They’re obviously skilled enough to play it but tennis is so much about intent than just skill. My argument is not about capability-that way even Roger has the capability to defend extremely well and does so on a good day but it is not his style, He doesn’t enjoy it as much as he enjoys and relies on offense.

      • Okay I disagree with the opportunistic ventures bit. Fed had 80 net approaches in the Rome 2006 final out of which he won well over 60. He had a pretty big number at Wimbledon 2006 as well. The reason I highlight Rome (other than the fact that I don’t remember the specific numbers for some of his other matches now) is because this was clay. Of course, Roger did lose some confidence at the net post 2005 because there was less requirement for him to go in, but you can tell from how quickly he recovered his net play that he was always an all-courter. That never changed.

      • The only thing that stood out for Nadal at USO 2010 was his serve (which he has never been able to replicate thereafter) and the fact that he was hitting his BH flatter than on an average. If this is all it takes to call a guy an aggressive baseliner then unfortonately, the standards to today’s game are just that much lower.
        This is like when people call Nadal a great grass-courter because he makes a minor adjustment here and there on the surface notwithstanding his obvious struggles in Week 1 when the grass plays faster. This is what homogenization has essentially done. It’s blurred the average fans’ distinction between styles so that any remotely minor adjustment looks like a big deal.

    • lucky hit it out of the park again. lucky to have you back! 🙂

      5th set 2013 FO. Agressive baseline tennis on clay. Period.

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x153wim_5-5-roland-garros-2013-semi-final-nadal-vs-djokovic-full-match-hd_sport

      And, no, it is not a fact that Ashe plays slow. The following links below qualitatively ranks US Open as medium-fast and quantitatively ranks it faster than average. i.e. not “slow”.

      http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/surface-speed/
      https://www.perfect-tennis.com/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

      I guess that’s pretty much it.

      • Video is blurry f when watched embedded here.

        Click on the dailymotion text or select 720p from the HD text for great quality.

        This was amazing tennis at the very highest level.

      • Djokovic, Murray, Fed have all labelled it slow. Certainly slower than Armstrong. And that is visible to any remotely knowledgeable tennis fan when he watches long-winded rallies on it or watches players struggling to hit through it. End of.

      • If it were all down to the weather the difference in how aggressive players dealt with it would be very marginal. It is not. In fact ,the USO ran a survey this year asking fans if they wanted to see more S&V at the Open. I wonder why. 😉

      • Hahaha, I just saw the video. I had seen that match. My god. A fan just called it aggressive tennis hahaha, way to stamp your own foot man. Those two are literally moon balling through the court. Look at that net clearance! If that doesn’t indicate safe tennis I don’t know what does. My God. Fans think THIS is aggressive tennis nowadays. Sheesh.

      • Agressive tennis from the baseline is not just about net clearance on every stroke. Look at the depth and going for the lines lol. The transition from defence to offence is obvious.

        Even Federer does this against better players than him like Nadal and Djokovic.

        Sure, Roger always comes out aggressive in slams but eventually returns to defence as shown in the USO final highlights here.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKAiZu4lhSk

        By the second half of the third set and most of the fourth, Nole stays aggressive and Roger defends behind the baseline again and again.

        Even his ROS has pretty much always been a defensive return just chipping it back into play.

        federazzi like simple absolutes but they are easily broken down by actual tennis fans.

        Feeling the need to yourself “TennisFan” pretty much speaks for itself but, as usual, the emperor has no clothes (like Roger when the Weak Era ended).

  17. Ricky, why have neither of my posts gone in? It’s not as though I insulted anyone in them.
    If you’re going to run an open forum why not do it objectively giving all fans an opportunity to contribute rather than limiting yourself to one?

  18. Djokovic admitting he is targeting Feds slam count

    “I would not be truthful to you if I would say I’m not thinking about it,” Djokovic told the New York Times. “Of course I am.”

  19. Given how well Novak played and the stability of his game, in another two years tennis world might consider he is the real GOAT.

    He can be considered “untouchable” this season

    • Agreed he could arguably pass Rafa if he wins 1-2 slams, Olympic gold and passes Rafa in h2h and masters, etc. all could happen within the next 12 months (if Rafa does nothing).

      Big if though.

      • Yeah, HUGE if. But then he has surpassed Nadal in weeks at the top, grand slam match wins plus WTF titles (to say nothing of career earnings) and he has defended titles on all surfaces, too. Nadal leads on other indices such as Olympic and grand slam titles, Masters Series (just) and head to head (ditto). Part of the fun of the debate. Already many writers rate Djoker’s best as surpassing Nadal. But who really knows? If you like Nadal then you’re going to back himto the hilt, his appalling 2015 notwithstanding.

        • For some maybe but not me. I thought Sampras was GOAT until Federer and thought Fed waS GOAT until Nadal’s 2013. I posted here prior to the final that I was ready to hand it back over to Fed had he beaten Nole in the final and I meant it but alas.

      • Easy. A slam at 34 in today’s game plus four more slams than Rafa to me would be more significant than Rafa’s gold, multiple DC titles, greater masters titles, dominant h2h and amazing comeback in 2013 after seven months out when I feel he passed Fed whereas his three extra slams is not.

        But GOAT is subjective and that’s just my opinion.

  20. Well 17 is achievable for both Rafa and Novak. They have to win 10 slams between them, Rafa 1 in each of the next three years and Novak 7 in three years, leaving 2 for the others. It will be interesting that we have 3 tennis greats holding the same number of slams and leading the way.

    I guess should that happen, Novak will be the one holding the most HC slams, replacing Fed who has 9 on the HCs. Rafa will still be the leader on clay and Fed on grass. There’ll be never ending debates as to who’s the Goat!

    • 17 isn’t the key. Nole has surpassed Rafa in my estimation. Soon he will surpass Roger as well. Look at the weeks at #1 compared to Rafa. Nole has dominated the tour at times. Rafa has only ever dominated the clay. Period. Nole will get the Masters record soon. He has WTF titles. Rafa has none. He has as many USO, 1 more Wimbledon(he never goes out to scrubs like Rafa), 4 more AO. Only the FO kept Rafa relevant. Now that he can’t even win that he is done and dusted. It will only get worse going forward.

      • How do you know Rafa is not going to win any more? Dont make the same mistake like in 2013. Things can change quickly, like in 2011 and then 2013.

        What if Novak is not going to win anymore? He’ll still be having fewer slams and masters than Rafa. I doubt anyone is rating Novak ahead of Borg despite Borg having fewer weeks at no.1.

        Well Rafa has 9 FOs to Novak’s 0 and thats the big difference, thats a career slam vs NO career slam.

  21. Olympic has got nothing to do with Being GOAT( if there is such a thing as GOAT to begin with) Even Nicholas Masu won an Olympic Gold. You are deliberately trying to ignore more important factors . Nadal has only spent 141 weeks as # 1 and is unlikely to add to it, because even if he somehow regains his form, he mostly only does well in a 2-3 month European clay court season. Hence its highly unlikely that he will ever overtake Djokovic as World # 1 in the future. Pete Sampras spent 286 weeks as # 1 more than twice Nadals total. Nadal has been the year end # 1 3 times and never even managed to finish year end # 1 2 years in a row. Nadal has been and ITF world champion only twice. Sampras was year end # 1 and ITF World champion 6 years in a row. Djokovic is a year younger and has spent more time as world # 1 he has clinched year end # 1 ranking 4 times in last 5 years and ITF World Champion 5 years in a row. You talk about Head to head, Djokovic would have easily taken over Nadal in head to head if Nadal had been good enough to reach the Qf’s SF’s and Finals of events this year. Even in the past if Nadal had reached more finals in non-clay court events the head to head would be easily in Djokovic’s favour something you know too but it is just that you wont admit. You mentioned about Masters series, I say add ATP world tour finals to the debate and Djokovic has 24 Masters series events + 4 ATP world tour finals Nadal has 27 ATP Masters series and 0 ATP world tour finals.

  22. ATP World Tour Finals is a big event because only the elite players play there, there is no chance for you to get lucky beat a bunch of nobodies on your way to the title. But of course you play down the importance of that event only because Nadal hasn’t historically fared well there. I am sure had he done well there then you would have definitely brought that up.

  23. Well until Novak really does so, what we are posting here are just mere speculations. We wont even know what will happen tomorrow. As of now, Novak is still behind Rafa in his achievements and both are behind Fed.

    What if Fed wins another slam to make it 18? Possible if he has Stan beating Novak and someone else takes care of Rafa, Fed can take care of anyone else. I think that will put this debate to rest.

    Easier to win one when luck is on your side, than to win four, or worse still to win 7 or 8, I guess.

  24. Also, really, on what planet are Nadal-Djokovic playing offensive tennis? Their three-set matches are often longer than Fed’s four/five setters.

    • Dear friend,

      Nadal/Novak met more on clay these past five years, 11 out of 21 times they met on clay so far. Matches on clay were normally longer than matches on the HCs or on grass. Their USO matches were hardly any longer than Fed vs Novak at the USO (2010/2011/2015). Their only Wimbledon match, in 2011, weren’t any longer than Fed/Novak Wimbledon match this year either.

      Nadal/Novak matches on HC BO3 were normally done in straight sets with Novak having the upper hand most of the times, hardly any long drawn out matches. There were only four long ones, IW/Miami 2011, AO2012 and Montreal 2013 when they had to go the distance.

      Fed also had his fair share of long matches, with Delpo at USO, with Roddick at Wimbledon 2009, with Falla at Wimbledon 2010, with Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011, and also vs Simon at AO and FO to name a few.

      • Wait what? Their Wimbledon match was certainly longer than THIS year’s Wimbledon. I remember scratching my head as to why a four setter would have to last that long. Obviously last year’s match between Roger-Novak was longer given that it was a five-setter and tight in most sets.
        Both Fed-Novak semis of the years you mentioned were again five setters. I don’t really know what trip you’re on or how this changes what I said about the average length of Fed’s matches which is always way shorter than these two. And I’m talking about time taken (or rather wasted) and not the number of sets played.

    • Fed’s matches were often shorter by comparison because he relied heavily on his serves most of the time. If you think offensive tennis means playing shorter matches, well that’s only your opinion. As I’ve mentioned, Fed was also involved in some long drawn out matches, despite him relying on his serves to win quick points.

      • No. They’re short because Federer typically aims at keeping points shorter and takes less time between points, expending less energy on court than either of these guys. Sure, he’ll have an odd match long if he’s playing a defender like Djokovic where he cannot hit through the court,, like I said, because the conditions are slow and cannot, inspite of trying, end points quickly, But that’s about it.

        NNY I have absolutely no idea what your post is about. I’ve already listed players who’d qualify as aggressive baseliners in the eyes of anyone who knows the game. Nadal and Djokovic aren’t among them. It is not their natural game nor is it their trump card in a given match. They win on the basis of their superior defense which, as I said has it’s own place in tennis.
        As for taking offense to my posts, that is on to you seeing as nothing in my posts is even remotely personal. Not my problem if you or the others don’t like being shown up in an argument.

    • TennisFan,

      You aren’t paying attention to what’s been said in response to your comments. That’s why trying to catch up reading here, it seems like a one-way conversation. You never heard of aggressive baseliners? If you think that Novak and Rafa play only defensive tennis, then you need to go and watch the 2013 RG semifinal asap! Then come back here and try to tell anyone that they don’t play aggressive?

      You are being quite subjective. Also, remember that your opinions are only that, not facts. The idea that only shorter matches are offensive, is absurd on its face. The length of any match is not an indicator of the type or quality of tennis played.

      • Agree NNY. He is saying others are not reading his posts whereas in reality he is not reading others :-). He has decided that Nadal & Djoko are defensive baseliners and Fed is as offensive as it can get and hence no other opinions matter.

        Some of the points made on this thread are downright absurd..shorter matches means offensive tennis. One can hit 100 UE in a match and the match will anyway get over soon and quick..offensive tennis I bet you 🙂

  25. Nah, Nadal/Novak Wimbledon match in 2011 wasn’t a long drawn out match; please do not exaggerate. I was wondering at that time how short a final it was, not much longer than the final of the previous year, quite anti climatic.

  26. And you think Nadal/Novak USO matches weren’t tight??

    This year’s USO final, done in four sets, how long it took, despite Fed’s net rushing and so called SABR??

    • This years USO final lasted about same time as Rafa/Novak 2013 final and both were 4 sets. Even USO 2010 final was around 3-3.5 hrs at max at 4 sets.

      So much for offensive tennis and SABR 🙂

      And guess what neither of 2010 and 2013 had 95 UE in the match too 🙂

      People seriously need to remove all bias and pre conceived judgements and listen to others.

  27. TennisFan,

    I wanted to say that when you keep asking someone what trip they’re on, that is unnecessary and insulting. If you have nothing better than personal insults in lieu of making a coherent argument, then there is no point to any discussion with you.

    I don’t need to tell people that luckystar is one of the most knowledgeable people here. Those of us who have been fortunate to discuss tennis with her already know that.

    You are entitle to your opinion, but please stop with this nonsense asking her if she’s tripping. Others are also entitled to their opinions and you should show more tolerance.

  28. I believe that this USO final took three hours and twenty minutes. I didn’t know that this would be considered a short match.

  29. Rafa is usually not given credit. All along people tried to put Fed on top of him and now that Fed cannot win any more slams, people are trying to say Djokovic is better than him.

    Yes Djokovic is catching up and at 1 time last year we were 6-14 in slams and today it is 10-14, the gap has narrowed considerably. However what matters is the moment and as of now, Rafa is still higher in slams and Masters. Who knows what the future holds? It is not a given that Rafa wont win any more slam neither it is a given that Novak will keep on winning. One just needs to look at Novaks 2012-2014 where he won just 3 slams and even Rafa won 4 in that period and Novak was supposed to dominate.

  30. The correct question to ask will be..Will Novak win his career slam first or Rafa win his double career slam first? :-). Very relevant question I will say.

    Thoughts?

    I would be over the moon if Rafa wins his 2nd AO and 2nd Olympic gold next year. It will be double career golden slam and it will be historic 🙂

  31. Defense, so heralded in other sports, seems like a dirty word in tennis.

    I wonder why? Is it because Rafa and Novak are better at defense than Roger?

  32. A very important statistic

    Partially related to everything above, you cannot underestimate this simple fact: RF covered more court than Djokovic. 66.4 more meters, to be exact. This might not seem much, but it just tells you how impossible the narrative of Djokovic as purely a defender is. If Djokovic is doing all the running…how does RF end up covering more ground? Also, this is now a trend, given that RF covered 204.6 more meters than Djokovic in the Wimbledon final.

    • Because he cannot hit through the Court? You see what you’re doing is basically making my point for me. There’s no way Roger’d have to cover that court, being the offensive player that he is, if he knew he wasn’t at a disadvantage everytime he was at the net or everytime he trying to hit through Djokovic. He’s forced to play defence against his natural instinct on a surface that ought to have rewarded offense.

      • That is not my point. You are choosing to take it that way to suit you . This is not about speed of court.

        If Roger is that offensive..he should be able to impose himself against Djoker and Nadal. Fact is he is not able to on any damn court (slow HC, fast HC, medium fast HC and even grass) and is forced to defend more because Novak and Rafa are not just defending but also being offensive when needed and are pushing him back and not allowing him to impose. They may not have offensive all out attack hat on 100% times but they will be offensive where needed and when needed to pull the trigger.

        Defense is not a bad word as people are pointing it out to be in tennis.

      • Roger took Djokovic out in straights in Cincy. Djokovic HIMSELF admitted that Roger’s game, which is naturally attacking, really comes through on any quick surface-very few of which remain today in tennis. And you’re arguing this. To even suggest that Roger must adapt himself to a surface that shouldn’t be slow to begin with only goes to prove my point about the level ignorance that pervades amongst tennis fans today. Novak didn’t manage to push Roger anywhere. Roger was still getting an excellent read on his serve and playing some excellent first strike tennis. He won almost as many points as Novak did but he had to work harder for them precisely because shots that would normally be groundstroke winnners or volley winners on a quick surface were sitting up. That’s what happens in slow/homogenous conditions.

      • No attacker is going to be able to play effective attacking tennis in conditions that don’t allow for it. If that were the case we’d have S&Vers winning on clay on a regular basis. The fact is they can’t do it and their only option becomes defense. THIS is why fans have been calling for surface speeds to pick up in the first place.

      • 60m more is nothing in a match where he was the one creating more opportunities. This is why people who don’t play tennis shouldn’t talk about it in technical terms either. The rest of your babble has been answered already.

      • Roger won all his slams post 2003 when courts were slowed down or as they are now . Enuff said. So he has benefited as much as anyone has. When he was winning, you all had no problem with not being able to play his 100% attacking game, now that he is not winning slams, suddenly it is about speed of courts.

        Please stop making it out to be that Roger is not winning slams as courts are slowed down. Roger though fantastic at 34 now and being innovative has won just 1 slam out of past 23 slams (yes 23 is a huge huge number) and the main reason is Rafa and Novak (now) completely have him on the ropes.

      • “60m more is nothing in a match”

        Exactly, but in your own curious words, you just stamped your own foot.

        If it is nothing in a match then you can’t say Djokovic was defensive and Federer was agressive.

        Federazzi pot-and-kettle bias knows no bounds.

      • “THIS is why fans have been calling for surface speeds to pick up in the first place.”

        What fans. Some fedfans who never had to watch 1-3 shot rallies in the 90’s maybe and would want anything done to help Roger.

        But certainly not real Tennis Fans.

        That is why courts were made slower to begin with.

      • 1) The Courts have clearly been slowed down way more since 2003. A number of commentators have pointed this out over the years at all majors. The official news of a slower court came out the first time, not in 2003 but in 2001 and only in the context of Wimbledon (Federer lost in 2nd Round the very next year. Courts across the board have been playing slow. Now, even the players themselves are saying it- including ones who are defensive baseliners.
        2) The fact that Roger is #2 at 34 only adds to his greatness, rather than take away from it. He’s a true all-courter, perhaps the only all-courter since Laver and it shows.
        3) Distance covered on the Court by and of itself is composed of so many factors: For one, Federer was going deeper in Djokovic’s service games than Djokovic was going on his on an average. Yes, he also got broken more but most times he had a game point in his own service games. Two, Federer’s movement, unlike Novak was composed of both, forward and lateral movement, which again gets factored in the distance covered.
        4) I already said Fed was forced to play more defense in this match given the conditions. But that’s precisely the point: This is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be happening across the board. Net play is virtually dead at the top of the game barring Roger as are so many other skills that long-term fans have enjoyed. And all of it is being sacrificed to an almost entirely endurance-based sport with minor technical adjustments off the back court. By and large, it looks like a game of ping pong now. The very fact that Federer is the lone attacker amongst a slew of defenders is one of the major causes of his having the sort of fanbase that he does.

    • 1) True (except for the French Open) which actually plays faster. Not sure what your point is and “way” more is way subjective.
      2) Agreed.
      3) No, it’s pretty much a reflection on how much running and retrieving was done. Nole played 95 points on serve, Federer 85. Federer came to net 16 times more than Djokovic out of 190 points played (8%). Neither of these are very significant to explain why they ran the same amount to support that Federer was more agressive overall I’m afraid. More like federazzi revisionism.
      4) Except I already said that it is a relatively fast court, not a slow court and I’ve already said the courts were made slower to combat the borefest from the 90s.

      Hope this helps “Tennis” fan.

      • TennisFan,

        You are not giving Novak nearly enough credit for being able to play this match in his terms. To put it up to the slower speed of the court or any of the conditions, is to essentially dismiss the things that Novak was doing that forced Fed out of his game. It didn’t happen by accident, or because the stars were aligned against Fed on that one night or any of a hundred other rationalizations and excused that Federazzi come up with all the time.

    • Sanju,

      I appreciate you looking up that info. I think the point is that Novak is skillful enough to change the dynamic of a match. Obviously, Fed wanted to make the points as short as possible. He wanted to come out aggressive and take Novak out of his game. But Novak was able to contest the match for the most part on his terms. He was the one running Fed back and forth all over the place scrambling as he kept the ball in play with another, and another shot.

      I think that stat about Fed covering more ground than Novak is quite relevant. Ideally, Fed would not want to play the match on those terms.

  33. A good article on reason behind Djokers success

    The first pillar of Djokovic’s game has to be his baseline fundamentalism. And by this, I mean his perpetual obsession with operating in a part of the court that extends two feet behind the baseline, and two feet in front of it. This is where Djokovic lives, and where he will always choose to be if he has his say. Even when he’s pushed back, you can see him frantically trying to move forward and return to his geometrical home. The unnerving part for opponents is that Djokovic’s fanaticism about court position effectively shrinks the court. There’s less open space, fewer angles. And what’s more annoying for guys is that this doesn’t vary depending on whether Djokovic is serving or returning, given the way Djokovic positions himself for first and second serve returns, and his forward momentum after both.

    7. The second pillar of Djokovic’s game is his ability to change the direction of the ball off both wings with utmost ease. This is a very rare skill, and it has been discussed to some extent. The easiest thing in tennis is to hit the ball in the same direction it came from. You need that extra bit of timing to be able to re-direct the trajectory of the ball. But Djokovic doesn’t stop there: not only can he change the direction of the ball as he pleases…he can do so with little warning. Part of this has to do with the way Djokovic hits the ball off his forehand and his backhand. His swings allow him to hide the direction he is going with his shots, particularly if he takes the ball a little late on the backhand side. It’s just very hard for an opponent to read, and Djokovic tends to vary his patterns constantly.

    8. The third pillar of Djokovic’s game is his uncommon ability to hit the ball either on the rise or late, and be equally effective either way. This adds a very subtle layer of unpredictability for his opponents, particularly combined with the element of surprise described in paragraph 7. There’s no ball-machine effect of getting the same ball over and over again. Djokovic might choose to take a backhand on the rise, limiting the amount of time his opponent has to respond. Or he might choose to take it a bit late, and fire it down the line. He can do this off the forehand side, too. This constant disruption of rhythm will drive anyone crazy.

    9. The fourth pillar of Djokovic’s game is his ability to put different spins on both his forehand and his backhand. This is something that’s not very easy to appreciate while watching from TV, but you can definitely see it if you focus on it. on Sunday Djokovic varied the amount of topspin off both wings to tremendous effect. While he doesn’t have the easy power to blow you off the court with either, he sure has the ability to produce heavy, deep shots off both wings. And he doesn’t even settle on one kind of spin within a given point. If the rally is long enough, you’ll see Djokovic hit flat forehands, heavy topspin forehands, angled forehands with sidespin, etc. Same goes for the backhand. This is another layer of unpredictability to Djokovic’s game, and one that his opponents surely dislike. After all, most pros love a consistent ball in order to get into a rhythm. Djokovic won’t give you that. Again, It’s not the most obvious thing to observe, though, as the difference between a topspin backhand and a slice backhand. But the effect on the opponent is the same: they will have to hit a ball at a different height, and their timing will have to adjust accordingly.

    10. The fifth pillar of Djokovic’s game is his ability to disguise his intent behind any given point. What is Djokovic trying to accomplish out there? Is he trying to go guns blazing, like RF on Sunday? Is he trying to merely rally with you, hoping you make a mistake? Is he going to grind down your weakness point after point, shrinking the court in a way that flares up all your insecurities? The answer is: it depends. on Sunday against RF, Djokovic did a whole bunch of things. Of course, he tried to target RF’s backhand corner, as he’s historically done. He went there with pace, he went there with spin, he looked for angles, and always tried to go for depth. But Djokovic also went to RF’s forehand corner quite often, with either cross-court forehands, down the line backhands, or even inside-in forehands. Sometimes he went there with pace. Sometimes with spin. Sometimes he disguised he was going there, and other times he was fairly obvious with his intent. Djokovic also was unafraid to go deep up the middle, too, and given his tendencies, he did that off his forehand and backhand wing. Against other players, he’ll mix-in a few drop shots, though that element was gone on Sunday, and with good reason: RF was already trying to end points as soon as possible, so why play into his hands?

    11. The five pillars described above could be the foundation of Djokovic’s tennis philosophy: to be entirely unpredictable, shot to shot, point to point. Heck, you could even add his marginally improved transition game as another layer of unpredictability, and a necessary one, too. The more options, the better. Same with his marginal increase of sliced backhands. But the key is to not make any given approach too much of the spotlight, and remain an enigma.

  34. Tennisfan, the reason why Fed approached the net so often in that 2006 Rome match was because thats his only way to beat Rafa on clay even though in the end he still failed. Notice that he hardly moved to the net when playing Rafa on clay thereafter.

    Hes a S&V’er evolving into a baseliner but hes better than the next gen guys when at the net. Imo hes spending at best 30% of his time at the net but may be fewer than that even.

    You seem to take a narrow view about offensive tennis. Tennis played from the baseline can be offensive too and thats not just about hitting winners; if you can maneuver your opponent to force them out of their comfort zone before winning the point, that to me is also offensive tennis. The purpose is to gain the upper hand and wins the point. Both Novak and Rafa are so good at doing that, creating angles, hitting the corners or the lines that theyre hard to defend against and many times they come out the winner. To me Monfils and Simon are the ones who play defensive baseline tennis, and theyre the ones giving Fed plenty of headaches because of their incredible defence even though they’re from the 2nd tier.

    If baseline tennis cant be offensive tennis then most clay court tennis would be defensive tennis! Rafa certainly didnt grind when at the USO. He won in 2013 by serving well but not big, notice that no one was able to break his serve until the SF that year. He only lost a set in a TB to Kohl along the way. He certainly didnt play defensive tennis.

    Both Rafa and Novak are capable of playing aggressive baseline tennis mixing in some net game. With the slowing of the courts they have to adapt too and so they adopted the defence/offence game which serve them well.

    • Luckystar, Monfils and Simon are counter-punchers. Not defensive baseliners. Maneuvering an opponent from the back court is almost passe in tennis now. As is creating angles/changing spins etc. They’re also not particularly major adjustments. Nadal and Djokovic are just more consistent at doing it and stronger mentally while at it, as also fitter. But these adjectives by themselves mark a defensive baseliner.

      Again, like I said, fans have simply not watched attacking/aggressive tennis enough to be able to make that distinction. It’s unfortunate. But hopefully, that will change soon. Whether it happens while or after Fed is playing does not matter. But but it has to happen.

      • Excuse me, so you think we have not watched tennis of the 80s and the 90s and never heard of or watched attacking tennis on various surfaces??

        Each era has its own distinction, the current era is marked by improved string technology and slower surfaces so players have to adapt and find a way to win. If Fed cant win on the playing surfaces now, dont blame the surface, blame his own inability to adapt to win. In each era, you have to play the best way possible in order to win and to stay at the top. Its the players adapting to the surfaces and not the surfaces changing to suit the players. Whats the point of net rushing when you can get passed or lobbed most of the time?

        They may speed up the courts now but theyre not going to speed them up to 1990s standard. I doubt Fed would start winning at the slams again just because they speed up the courts. His younger rivals are simply too quick and too good in a BO5 to allow Fed to have the upperhand.

      • So you think Monfils and Simon as counterpunchers are not defensive but Rafa and Novak who play defence/offence are defensive and more defensive than Monfils and Simon?? Really?

      • Luckystar, counter-punchers and defensive baseliners are not the same thing. I don’t even know how to explain this to you because you won’t understand it till you get on a tennis court or maybe talk to a coach. Simon (and sometimes Monfils) do play defense but less authoritatively than Nadal/Djokovic. I really cannot articulate this to someone like this. Counter-punchers are guys that never set the tone of a match. Defensive baseliners are more forthcoming than that but not nearly as much as the aggressors because their trump card remains their ability to defend.

      • Hahaha, My god. A “Tennis” fan just called Simon not a defensive baseliner hahaha, way to stamp your own foot man. Simon is literally moon balling through the court. Look at that net clearance! If that doesn’t indicate defensive tennis I don’t know what does. My God. Fans think THIS is aggressive tennis nowadays. Sheesh.

        Oh wait. Which way do you want it again? Oh right, both ways.

        #FederazziPotAndKettleLogic

      • TennisFan,

        I will wager that I have been watching tennis longer than you have been alive. I said this to someone else who was intent on lecturing about the sport of tennis and how it has developed.

        I could probably tell you a lot more than you know about attacking tennis. I’ve seen it all in my lifetime. I saw Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Ashe, Newcombe, Emerson, Tony Roche and then the next generation of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, and the next generation of Sampras and Agassi leading up to Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian and Fed, and finally Rafa, Novak and Murray.

        It’s kind of insulting that you would make any kind of assumption that others here have not seen any other tennis from previous decades.

  35. Exceptional good points (as you usually give) Luckystar

    I think the argument (attacking vs defending tennis) is pretty much settled but you’re never going to get across someone who writes this:

    “And you’re arguing this. To even suggest that Roger must adapt himself to a surface that shouldn’t be slow to begin with only goes to prove my point about the level ignorance that pervades amongst tennis fans today”

    nuff said…. 😉

      • NNY, you pretty much started the conversation by coming after me when I made my first post in the thread. If you had appreciated my view point (regardless of your disagreement) at the very outset and we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.

    • No, it’s not ‘settled.’ If it were you lot wouldn’t feel so compelled to address my posts at all.. :p And fortunately, I am not the only one (nor are Federer’s fans alone) in thinking this. The AO has already been contemplating a change now (although I’m not sure how much they can do with plexicushion) particularly after that abomination of a Final between Djokovic and Nadal in 2012, USO has also carried out a survey for this and hopefully Wimbledon will come around too and we’ll finally see some variety in tennis. Still a long way to go but clearly, the fans are no longer enjoying the ‘ping-pong’ game that tennis has become today.

      • Ping-Pong? Did I really read that? Well, I have to say that since we are all getting lectured by a so-called, self-anointed “expert”, then I just have to say that this is the most absurd and illogical thing I have read yet.

        If you were a true tennis fan, then you would be able to appreciate the game as it has evolved in this generation. I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. But I am really at a loss at this point and see no point in trying to discuss tennis with someone who is so condescending a patronizing.

        One final point. No one and I mean no one here, is any kind of self-styled expert or know-it-all. We are all here expressing opinions, sometimes referencing stats to back up our point of view. But no one here is God and no one should presume that he/she is the fount of all wisdom.

      • TennisFan,

        Sorry, but you are not going to blame this on me. You are the one who accused someone else of “tripping” more than once. There is no excuse for saying something like that and then repeating it. That’s not an answer, it’s an insult. So take responsibility for yourself.

        I have zero respect for someone who rather cowardly assigns blame to others. You said what you said. You are the one who has responded in a patronizing and condescending manner. If you didn’t like what I said, then don’t come here and put yourself on some kind of pedestal as though you know more than anyone else here. I certainly don’t need you to tell me anything about tennis.

        You said this was mainly a Rafa site. Yet on Ricky’s preview for the USO final there were at last count almost 400 comments. Who do you think was making those comments? Most of them were from the Rafa fans here, who also happen to be devoted tennis fans. We were still watching, making our predictions and chatting about the upcoming final even though Rafa was not there. There was some excellent discussion about the relative prospects of both players. Too bad you apparently didn’t see it or read it.

        You don’t get to characterize or dismiss any of us as just Rafa fans. I have followed this sport for my whole life. Rafa is without question my favorite player, but I can appreciate an enjoy what the other players bring to this sport. I am not someone who only watches Rafa.

        If you are upset about Fed losing, then just deal with it. He’s 34 and did well to get to two consecutive slam finals. He can’t beat Novak in a best of five at this stage of his career. But there is no reason for you to come here and diss how Rafa and Novak play. That’s just bush league and sour grapes.

        I don’t have anything more to say to you and am done with this discussion.

      • 1. It is a fact that you don’t see S&V in tennis today.
        2. It is a fact that the points and consequently the hours have gotten longer on an average.
        3. It is a fact that a lot of touch shots that were a common feature not so long ago have been replaced by an endurance backed regime.
        These are three simple truths even a layman in tennis will see and note. A layman, who’s not a Nadal fan that is. :p

        • tied of having to edit personal attacks between NNY and TennisFan. If want to have a personal conversation, do it via email. If you want to talk about tennis, do it here. Thank you.

      • Ricky you’ve only been editing my replies and leaving out “NNY’s.” I have neither the time nor the inclination for email convos with someone I don’t know personally although I’d appreciate a bit of parity in your editing work.
        But anyway as it stands, I’ve made my argument amply clear.

        • i don’t care what medium you use: e-mail, phone, snapchat, instagram, whatever. Just don’t do it here. Thanks. (and NNY has not thrown out any insults that have warranted deleting. At leastn none that I’ve seen).

      • Ricky, using that logic neither have I. I haven’t used a slang word or generally used any language that would be patently objectionable. I have used sarcasm, in the same measure that was used against me. I am not the one calling other people a ‘troll’ either. Like I said, some parity would be great. If you’re running a general tennis website, that is.

        And you just said you had supposedly edited NNY’s posts. Now I’m wondering why that is. You just contradicted yourself in two consecutive posts.

        Like I said, I don’t mind it if you put up a disclaimer explaining to other fans (Federer’s fans in particular), what this website. That way, we can stop pretending and more importantly, the other fanbases know what to expect when they enter.

  36. Court speed hasn’t changed in the last 12 years, this is just daft logic that Federer hasn’t wont enough recently because courts have slowed down, Federer won Wimbledon in 2003, then he went to the US Open where he tried to serve and volley, came to the net a lot but it didnt work as he lost to David Nalbandian in the 4th round. After this defeat he realized that you can only use your volleying skills as a surprise weapon and most of the points have to be won from the baseline. so he employed a more balanced approach that yielded great results for him.Just like Djokovic and Nadal Federer himself is a product of slow courts this is where he has had most of his success. Decline is inevitable in all sports, your prowess wane as you grow old. Tennis history is testament to this. Pete Sampras and Ivan Lendl both won 2 majors after their 28th Birthday. Borg was finished by the time he reached 26. John McEnroe never won a major after he turned 26. Jimmy Connors won 3 majors after his 28th Birthday. Federer added 2 majors after he turned 28. In most cases players are past their prime when they reach 28/29. The only player who has been an exception to this rule is Andre Agassi who won 5 majors after his 29th Birthday. speaking of age factor Nadal’s struggles also started after the French open 2014, that was just after his 28th Birthday. However age hasn’t yet taken its toll on the ageless Djokovic.

  37. On top of that, slower courts are not made for “defending” players nor designed against “attacking” ones. That’s just the way they are, it’s up to players to figure it out because the court is the same both sides of the net. Fed and many others are lucky to play at a time when clay isn’t predominant as it was in the past.

    • Clay has never been a predominant surface to begin with. It was grass/wood and then hard. At least, not since the Open Era barring twice at the USO. So Fed got no luck there. This is what the distribution always was.

  38. I’m not quite sure why so many people are bothering to engage with Tennisfan. He/she won’t be told and simply counters all discussions with patronising comments and rude putdowns. He/she is a tiresome troll.

    • Everybody who disagrees with the Nadal fan-clan here is a troll. I figured that part out now although that isn’t going prevent me from countering you anyway because if I read a post that is patently fallacious and have the time to answer I will do so.

      • No, anybody who cherry picks part of arguments without looking at the whole repeatedly.

        That can (and has) been done by rabid fans of Nole and Rafa as well.

        Just not by Tennis Fans.

  39. You dont try to understand and just carry on with your rants. First you have to acknowledge that Federer has had most of his success on slow courts, so why is court speed such a big issue now?

    • Because Federer didn’t have most of his success on slow courts? I don’t ever remember Ashe playing as slowly as it has been for the past five years and a lot of players are beginning to point that out now. He won most of his AOs on Rebound Ace and not plexicushion, again proving my point.
      Wimbledon is tricky because it still plays fast in Week 1 but is significantly slower in the second week,

      • This is hilarious. Federer has not won in USO since 2009 so the court has been slowed down since 5 years.

        God..hilarious cherry picking

        Folks – Please ignore him. We are wasting our time.

  40. Jon Wertheim says:

    My take on Federer-Djokovic: for six rounds Federer was so relaxed and free and, trite as it sounds, played his game. Against Djokovic he felt so much pressure that he change his risk-reward ratio and gave himself little margin. When you approach a match essentially telling yourself “I have to play damn near perfect to win,” you set yourself up for trouble.

  41. Tennisfan, you dont have to articulate, we can see for ourselves. We can see that Monfils and Simon are never offensive or attacking players ; they counterpunch, so effectively they counter their opponent’s offence by defending. They are effectively defensive players. Hewitt on the other hand is not a defensive counterpuncher, for he looks to win the point and goes on a counter attack whenever possible. We dont call Isner a counterpuncher for example because he goes on the offensive vs his opponent’s attack.

    Rafa and Novak are not counterpunchers for they can dictate play from the get go. They can also turn defence into offence quickly and they dont go defending all the time but look to take control of the point and turn offensive.

    • TennisFan, if what you’re saying is the case why do their matches always feature longer points than an average attacker’s? I’ve said this before, defenders can hit winners. But that is besides the point because at what point a winner is hit is almost important in tennis. Djokovic and Nadal’s biggest trump card against their opponents IS their defence (In Nadal’s case that’s even more so the case) and it is more than evident when you watch them play. They are rarely the ones creating out there. It is also the reason why their matches on an average feature so many breaks of serve because as is typical to the defensive baseliner, they’re both better returners (and return game players) than servers. You can turn a blind eye to it if you will, I cannot force you to agree but I will continue to reiterate what I believe is clearly wrong with the game.
      I want to see more variety in the game the same way that you probably want to see the same type of tennis being played everywhere. And if yours is a legitimate viewpoint so is mine.

      • What attacker? By attacker you mean players like Isner, Karlovic or Raonic where points are extremely short? Other than those who serve big or serve well all the time ( and that includes Fed) I don’t see matches as particularly short or not as long as a Rafa or a Novak match.

        You talk about players these days don’t play with varieties, but just how many players could play like Novak or Rafa? Who else have their abilities of creating those angles, those incredible passing shots, drop shots yet good enough when at the net and incredible at the baseline? Which other player(s) could attack and defend as well as both of them? Not even Fed could do what they could. In fact having the abilities to defend and attack all the time is variety in itself, more varied than just attacking all the time!

      • What “varieties” are you talking about? (Is that even a word?) Nadal/Djokovic are ordinary volleyers at best. They’re not at the net unless it’s an easy putaway. ANYONE can look like a genius on those in the Top 50 on a good day. Their drop shots, which rarelyif ever employed, are inconsistent and work only when they’re really on form. In fact, I haven’t seen Djokovic use drop shots as a strategy effectively before this year. They do NOT attack. One look at their average rally length tells you everything you need to know.

        The only true all-courter in the game after Laver, was and unfortunately still is Roger with no substitute in sight, who can play well off all parts of the court with a proportionate amount of success. The only reason Nadal/Djokovic even hit the passing shots they do and that look like some other-worldly shots to someone who’s oblivious to how surfaces matter in the sport, is because volleys that would ordinarily ‘die’ away on a quick surface sit up! This is the real reason Federer does well Indoors. Because he can punch away volleys without the fear that a guy on the other end will run them down and pick them off with ease.
        That is why attackers used to dominate at Wimbledon/USO back in the end. Because it was impossible for the baseliners to keep withstanding an onslaught from the incoming volleyer. It was a high risk-high-reward game.

      • ‘Asking an attacker to turn into a defender…’

        Well, so dont you see how marvellous both Rafa and Novak are, that they can switch from defence to offence and vice versa so quickly, whilst others can’t?

        I certainly prefer watching them then watching two ace machines aceing each other till no end; or two power hitters hitting as hard as possible against each other and nothing else.

        Novak’s incredible return of serves makes his matches vs big ace machines more interesting, I dont see why thats a bad thing. Its definitely more interesting than watching two opponents aceing each other and nothing else.

    • lucky,

      What I don’t understand is why some think that baseline tennis is essentially defensive. You did address that in one of your responses above, so I let your comment stand. But I just do not get it. The idea that someone can only be aggressive at net, is baffling to me. You know that I am someone who has seen them all and watched several generations and eras of this sport. I have seen the changing technology and different surfaces and watched players adjusting to court speeds. The game is now so different from what it was in Laver’s day.

      Defenders can absolutely take the advantage and know when to pull the trigger to hit the winning shot. This person simply does not appreciate Novak and Rafa and their style of tennis, so he will never give them the credit they deserve or acknowledge that they can both transition from defense to offense seamlessly.

      • None of this is true because I must have said about a thousand times in this very thread that defensive tennis has its place in tennis. I have no particular problem with it or the way Novak and Nadal play. I have a problem with players not having to make a lot of adjustments nowadays if their strength lies in their defense.My simple proposal is for the game to be more balanced than it is today so that different styles can thrive in it. Asking an attacker to turn into a defender is like asking Nadal to play right-handed. As for hitting winners you’re basically drumming the same things I’ve already acknowledged.

      • Ricky, but from what I know, Nadal switched to left precisely because he was more effective off that side. That way, even Roger can hit a double-handed BH, Technically. But that’s not his instinct right?
        This is precisely the crux of my argument: Don’t kill the natural instincts of players. I don’t think everything has to play lightening quick. Just that it ought be to be more balanced and allow for all styles to flourish.

  42. The courts HAD to be slowed down back then:

    New materials used in the rackets, and other ongoing improvements in technology meant that players could now hit the ball much harder, not even in the sweet spot, and still land the ball (close to) where intended.

    The balls started to fly faster for another reason too: the ‘arms race’ that started around the same time in all aspects of fitness, conditioning and training.

    • chloro,

      Yes! Thanks for bringing up the fitness, conditioning and training aspect. Lendl played a large part in introducing this concept to the sport. He was well known for his rigorous preparation and effort in trying to become stronger, better, athletically superior. It was a key component of his success.

      You do know your stuff! 🙂

  43. You know, what really bothers me is the one comment in which we were all essentially accused of having blinders on, so to speak, because we are Rafa fans. For myself, I find that extremely insulting. I have a deep and abiding appreciation for tennis in all its incarnations and for all of the players who have graced this sport with their skill, determination, perseverance, will to win and sheer talent. It’s been a privilege to watch them all.

    The idea that because Rafa is my favorite players, that I cannot see the excellence in other players, is actually pretty offensive. If anyone had been reading this site, then they would have seen the lively discussion over who would win between Fed and Novak. They would also have seen the level of support and praise for both of them. So this utter nonsense about Rafa fans being deliberately and willfully deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to a discussion about any player not named Rafa, is false on its face.

  44. Mr tennis fan says Ashe has been slowed down since 5-6 years. Guess when Roger last won his USOpen..2008.. So everything is cherry picked to defend Roger (haha who btw plays only attack but needs maximum defending by his fans:-)). Mr tennisfan actually played on that court to decide court speed from 2008 to 2015.

    Let us ignore Mr tennisfan people :-). We deserve better.

  45. I’ve been away for several days and come back to find Mr.Smug Tennis Fan is still banging on with his monotonous opinionated attacks. Too tedious for words.

  46. From Djokovic’s presser after losing the Cincy Final in 2012.

    Q. No doubt obviously we know there is disappointment, but I’m thinking surely it wouldn’t have dented your confidence going into the US Open with the results you’ve had over the last few weeks.
    NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Yeah, I feel good. I feel good on the court. The conditions here are quite different from US Open. It’s a bit slower there, which I think goes in my favor a little bit more. More suitable to my style of the game.
    I’m going to have a week that I think is very necessary for me right now mentally and physically.

    Since some people cannot use Google Search. :p

      • Yes, officially, even Wimbledon is not rated slow but we know it plays slow now. The USO Courts get relaid every August. Can’t be too hard to tinker around with the surface. I get that it is probably a decent marketing decision to make tennis more ‘understandable’ to the casual fan, but IMO they’ve taken it too far and dumbed everything down and also made it monotonous in the process. Given that AO and FO play slow, why can’t we have two majors that play quick? I think it’s a decent ask given that tennis has historically had fast courts in a dominant position and that didn’t affect it’s popularity per se (See the 70s and 80s, particularly Borg’s time). As long as you have a few players that fans relate to in every era, tennis will remain a popular sport, and now, even more so with the advent of social media.

      • No, the courts are measured every year. The French Open plays quicker than it did in the 90s.

        You maybe it through the eyes of a Federer fan, not necessarily a tennis fan. Just because another fan’s POV doesn’t jive with your own, it doesn’t mean they are less educated in the sport.

        Outside of the US (because they want their winners to be from ‘Merica), tennis has never been more popular throughout the world. Men’s tennis was never less popular when court speeds were faster on average.

  47. I doubt anyone knows what speed the courts are; even during a tournament the commies and players have completely different opinions on whether the courts are slow or fast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Skip to toolbar