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.
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.
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]
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.
LOL Roger doing a lot more running to play “attacking” tennis it seems while Nole “defends” with his more efficient game.
Great catch Sanju. Too funny.
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.
Then why did he run 60% more lol?
Federazzi revisionism knows no bounds.
Hilarious!
60 m and 200 m more (not %).
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.
Exactly Sanju, you would think that a Tennis Fan would know this.
Federazzi revisionism and denial knows no bounds.
“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.
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.
^ this incredible combination of five pillars some might label as ‘defensive’ tennis 🙂
^chloro,
Aha! Yes! Then the light dawns! Great comment!
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.
well said
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…. 😉
Agreed, I guess that’s pretty much it. 😉
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.
I was just using your phrase from your post yesterday so, in that sense, you could follow your own advise but federazzi pot-and-kettle “logic” may not translate.
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.
truth
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.
none in this exchange
i’ve had to edit or delete plenty of hers in the past (that did not involve you)
^Another great comment!
Sorry, my great comment response was directed to Shireling. I want to make sure that credit is given where it’s due! 🙂
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.
There are exceptions to the rule. After Cincy, Roger said he is playing better than he did 10 years ago. It is just that the competition is tougher now.
I guess Roger “stamped his own foot”.
Hilarious!!!
Nice of you to look up those stats, because you sure didn’t see them do it!
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.
Wow. How many qualifiers did you require there to come to your foregone conclusion?
Too funny!
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.
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.
“as slowly as it has been for the past five years and a lot of players are beginning to point that out now”
Quotes please.
#NonExistent
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.
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.
“Tennis” (read Roger) Fan is still grieving over Roger’s defeat while playing better than he did 10 years ago (Roger’s words).
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.
bad analogy, as Nadal would not have much trouble playing right-handed….since he is!
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.
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, you know your stuff (which is why you don’t need to make such claims in your moniker lol).
Ting!
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! 🙂
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.
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.
I think we scared him off. 🙂
Not really, it’s been slower in my opinion since 2011. Roger lost in both 2009 and ’10.
Now it’s been reduced to your opinion where as earlier you said…
“as slowly as it has been for the past five years and a lot of players are beginning to point that out now”
As expected, no quotes or references to back it up.
Federazzi revisionism knows no bounds.
#NonExistent
@4:15
Federer the lone ranger, sorry, I meant, attacker… 🙂
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.
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
It is very well known and accepted that Cincinnati plays faster than the US Open (which is also a relatively fast tournament).
What’s your point?
Cincinnati is a medium fast court by itself. The point being that the USO is slow. Particularly Ashe.
Whilst New York is a tad slower than Cincinatti, neither is rated slow. So Djokovic is of course correct. However, he doesn’t say that New York is slow.
Both tournaments are rated medium-fast.
Indian Wells is rated slow.
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.
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.