Roger Federer has won a fair share of epic Grand Slam matches throughout his illustrious career. He has lost more than a few instant classics, as well.
There’s the 2008 Wimbledon final, the 2010 U.S. Open semifinals, and the 2011 U.S. Open semifinals to name several that fall into the latter category.
This time around, in Sunday’s Wimbledon final, it looked like Federer was going to be on the right side of history against the opponent who beat him in those two aforementioned U.S. Open thrillers. Coming off a semifinal win over Rafael Nadal, his conqueror in the 2008 Wimbledon title match, Federer had every reason to take down world No. 1 Novak Djokovic.
The 37-year-old outperformed his Serbian rival in just about every statistical category: more aces, fewer double-faults, higher first-serve percentage, more first-serve points won, more second-serve points won, more net points won in terms of both quantity and effectiveness, more break points won and with a better conversion rate, more winners, and more total points. Only in unforced errors did Djokovic check a single box.
Federer also served for the match at 8-7 in the fifth set and had two championship points at 40-15 and 40-30. It was all right there for the Swiss to give himself–and a raucous, pro-Federer crowd–a 21st Grand Slam title, his ninth at the All-England Club.
Instead, another Wimbledon coronation for Federer became U.S. Open deja vu.
Djokovic saved two match points, just as he had in the two semifinals at Flushing Meadows, and clawed his way to a 7-6(5), 1-6, 7-6(4), 4-6, 13-12(3) triumph that needed four hours and 57 minutes to be completed.
It was the longest final in Wimbledon history. Interestingly, it surpassed the 2008 final on the first point of the historic, first-ever fifth-set singles tiebreaker when the clock hit four hours and 49 minutes.
Eight minutes later, it was finally all over–leaving everyone inside the most famous court in tennis unsure how to react. Djokovic’s celebration was muted, Federer was stunned, the Centre Court crowd crushed.
In his press conference, the second-seeded runner-up was asked about how he recovers from a defeat such as this one.
“Similar to getting broken when serving for the match,” he noted. “Take it on your chin, you move on. You try to forget, try to take the good things out of this match. There’s just tons of it. Like similar to ’08 maybe, I will look back at it and think, ‘Well, it’s not that bad after all.’ For now, it hurts–and it should, like every loss does here at Wimbledon.
“I think it’s a mindset. I’m very strong at being able to move on because I don’t want to be depressed about actually an amazing tennis match.”
While experiencing emotions at the complete other end of the spectrum, Djokovic agreed with his rival’s assessment of what had just taken place.
“It was probably the most demanding, mentally most demanding, match I was ever part of,” the 16-time major champion admitted. “I had the most physically demanding match against Nadal in the (2012) finals of Australia that went almost six hours. But mentally this was (a) different level, because of everything.
“I was one shot away from losing the match, as well. This match had everything. It could have gone easily his way.”
Could have…. Really should have, to be fair…. And it would have, with just one more point in the 16th game of the deciding set.
‘Could have, should have, would have….’ It’s a phase we hear often in tennis, a sport with impossibly small margins. Perhaps never have those margins been smaller than they were on Sunday in yet another Djokovic-Federer classic.
in the words of Federer, I can’t believe it
Probably one of Fed’s hardest losses ever. Two championship points. Still lost.
Agreed, Nole snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. What a match!
more aces, fewer double-faults, higher first-serve percentage, more first-serve points won, more second-serve points won, more net points won in terms of both quantity and effectiveness, more break points won and with a better conversion rate, more winners, and more total points.” – all offset by a tiny bit more mental strength
The most devastating sport event ever that happened to me. And I had some… Interestingly, if Fed won, I would be happy and not asking myself complicated questions like: Was Djoko better? And if not, how’s that fair? Is there a God? Who decides in that moment that he’ll lose the next 2 match points…
It’s strange that Novak managed to win those 2 US Open matches after Fed had 4 match points in total and here 2 more… I mean that can’t be only about Fed’s weakness or Novak’a great return. It’s like there is a higher power on Novak’s side… This loss really brings up in me so many questions about existence and the reason/randomness of some events occuring.
Eugene, believe me you are not alone. As a Rafa fan, I have been through a fair share of the exact same feelings that you are going through. Especially after AO2012,AO2014,AO2017, Wimbledon 2007,2018. In fact I remember picking up some philosophy books after he retired vs Cilic in AO2018. It was as if, like you said, a force which never wanted him to do well at Australia.
Feels refreshing to be understood @vmk1.
Eugene, Djoko said he was calm and I think that says it all. I was posting during the match that Djoko looked calm out there, and Fed was the more eager one. Perhaps, the more one wants it, the more nervous one gets. I think Fed was nervous during those crucial moments. I think the same happened to Rafa in the AO 2012 and 2017 finals, and last year’s Wimbledon SF.
I guess it’s best that Fedal avoid Djoko at the slams if they want to win; I feel their ‘sufferings’ at the hands of Djoko have made them nervous or tense up once they see him across the net in important matches.
Fed and Rafa needs to win big without Djoko standing in their way, like in 2017, then they’ll rebuild their confidence, perhaps once they could win what matters to them (for Fed Wimbledon; for Rafa AO and Wimbledon again) they may then relax against Djoko? The question is how to avoid Djoko? Hope for a tougher draw for Djoko, or Djoko not having his best days at the slams?
It’s obvious to me now that Fed has Djoko in his head, more so after losing to him at Cincy last year ( the last place where Fed had the upper hand all along). Fed was losing to Djoko everywhere lately – AO, IW, Miami, Wimbledon, USO, Paris, WTF and then Cincy. He only has a 1-0 against Djoko at Shanghai, and maybe still a positive H2H at Dubai; that’s quite a bad record against his main rival.
Having said all these, I think is the luck of the draw, that Fed had Rafa in the SF. Fed played well and should win the title, if not for having to beat Rafa in the SF followed by Djoko in the final.
That “higher power” is called “being six years younger”. I do not think God interferes in sporting events nor do I think that the good guys always win. There is chance – a ball drops in or out by a fraction of a millimeter. That’s the way it goes.
Djoko does go for his shots when he’s desperate. I don’t think Fed does. He tends to play more controlled. If you’re as good as they are maybe it’s a better strategy.
Disagree that it is skill which helped Novak play match points in a certain fashion. Nor do I believe in some higher power. But just statistically it is remarkable that with the serve as good as Federer’s, he will be losing so often after holding match points. That too he had two aces in that game. TWO free points to take him to 40-15. I think such situations are 50-50 and we feel that it is unfair when it happens against our Fav and conveniently attribute it to skill when it happens in the favour of our Fav.
The list is long
1. Today
2. Anderson last year
3. Nole in 10,11
4. Delpo in IW 2018
no way any non-slam deserves to be on the list.
2008 Wimbledon?
(but yes, 2018 IW final was epic and brutal for Fed)
(oh, are you referring only to matches lost from MP up?)
Yeah – I was only referring to the big points play. There are some vivid ones in my memory. Like Roger not taking the set point vs Rafa at French open final in the first set and then going on to lose the set. Also against Delpo at USO 201, he had set points to go two sets to one up and botched it, I think .
At the same time I remember Roddick failing on set point in Set 2 of the 2009 final foregoing a chance to go 2 sets to love up against Roger. Similarly Monfils missed a match point against at Roger at US open 2014.
So it all balances out but the misses are more vivid since they result in a loss which is a rarity for the big 3
Roddick had multiple consecutive set points in that tb in the 2nd set. It was a miracle that Fed won that set and made it 1:1. I remember I felt sorry for Roddick for losing that match. He maybe deserved to win, but Fed hit a ridiculous number of winners and many UEs.
So, it’s a game of statistics and probabilities? But in this case guys something doesn’t look right. The probability of Fed being denied so many MP is very low on his serve…
I couldn’t even watch the whole thing in the 2009 Wimbledon final. I was so gutted for Roddick. He was supposed to be the next great player but Fed came along. Watching Roddick lose repeatedly to Fed is part of the reason I stopped watching tennis starting in 2005. I couldn’t stand it anymore. By the time Roddick had another shot at a slam final in 2009, I was a diehard Rafa fan. But I still was gutted when he lost in such a close match. I often think that Roddick never recovered from that loss.
But I thought watching the match today, Fed has two championship points. All he needs is just ONE ace. With that serve, I could not see Fed losing at that point. But it happened. I remember years ago at the USO when Novak hit that unbelievable return when Fed has s chance to break him. It was like this fluke thing. Fed went on to lose that match. It is odd how things play out.
I guess it depends on who’s your opponent; against Rafa and Djoko, Fed tends to be more anxious; he wasn’t anxious I believe when facing Roddick in that Wimbledon final. But, I do feel as he gets older, he’s starting to lose to the younger guys too – Delpo and Thiem at IW. May I also include Tsitsipas at the AO, when Fed had so many BPs against a rookie player yet he couldn’t take advantage.
Won or lost on a whisker. How many matches has Fed won on a whisker? Luck does come into it even at this level.
Im not too disappointed for Fed, though, IMO he still played the match of the tournament to beat Nadal.
How many he won on a whisker Big Al? Not so many, compared to what he lost. I’m referring to slams only. 3 Wimbledons lost to Djoko don’t reflect their fair value on grass.
There is something more than that. We humans, believe we are smart. But what we know is just a fraction of the reality. I love and statistics, but that doesn’t explain everything.
* I love maths and statistics
Most of those disappointing losses were to Nadal or Djokovic ,maybe one to Tsonga.But he still has more Slams than any of them, and stats overall do prove something .Its the scoring system in tennis that’s strange when you can be the better player but lose because don’t play well on the important points . Maybe Fed doesn’t play so well on them?
Maybe @Big Al. I think from a more objective point or view, a different scoring would be more accurte vs value of each player. Like playing to 50 points. If the difference is not at least 5 points, then playing to 75, 100 etc. If it’s 100 to 95 you win. No games, tbs. What’s the point of winning 6:1 if that gets neutralised by a lucky 6:7?
Yeah but I had this exact feeling when Rafa had his pair of epics with Roger at Wimbledon. Of the ten sets they played there, Roger won four tiebreaks. It all seemed so unfair that Roger only was ahead by a margin of 2 or more in the 5th. Similarly the 2008 final was so close owing to the two TB’s. But then when he won a pair against Kyrgios, I was like TB’s are not that bad :).
Tennis seems fair or unfair based on whom you support and how emotionally invested you are.
If you dig deeper at the point level, how can a point won on an ace be assigned the same value as say, a point won after a 25 stroke rally. How can a double fault have the same value as a crisp winner.
Maybe they should introduce a play-off system similar to golf, eg if the ‘winning’ player has not won by a clear advantage of overall points won , then the match goes on. That could counteract the effect of just playing well (or not) on big points .
Isn’t that pretty much what a tiebreaker is? Even in golf, they still play the sudden death/playoff hole. It’s not like the player who hits the most birdies or eagles over 72 holes wins.
What I would say is that Fed too often plays the big points *differently* from how he plays most points. I don’t fault him for the first championship point he lost; he went for an ace, narrowly missed; and then Novak hit a great return. But the second point, Fed came in very early in the point, behind a very shallow ball. He’ll normally work a point more before coming in; that was atypical play from him, imo. OTOH, it almost worked: Novak had to hit a brilliant cross-court pass, which easily could have gone out. If Fed makes the approach a bit deeper, he probably wins that point.
Another example was in the 1st service point of the TB, when Fed serve and volleyed, something he had done very little in the match. The serve wasn’t good enough, and he had to half-volley a hard return against at his laces, he was unable to do.
In general, I think Fed could slow down a bit on those huge points, take a couple breaths, and think about how he wants to play the point. Sometimes I feel like instinct or momentum takes over and he doesn’t play as smart as he could.
Djokovic has an ‘intangible’ ability to win when he shouldn’t. The match should’ve been done and dusted in 3-4 sets. Federer’s biggest lesson from all of this will not be those missed opportunities but to play his own game regardless of who is at the other side of the net.
History didn’t repeat itself in the Fedal semi. #selectivebias #cherrypicking
Exactly. Sometimes I feel like it’s more like Fed has an intangible ability to lose matches he shouldn’t.
Joe , but golf is still all about lowest score over 72 holes and beyond , quite different from tennis when you can score many more points and games in the match and still lose . However, I cant see them changing much .
True, but the relevant unit in tennis is the set, not the game. I guess you could play first one to x number of games, win by two. It would make for a very different type of match, though.
And golf isn’t a good comparison anyway because you have no control over your opponents ball.It still seems unfair that the better player in tennis often loses on one point .
True, Fed should just play his game and go for his shots. The same thing happened in his 2006 Rome final against Rafa, he reached MP after five hours and five sets and yet he faltered and Rafa ended up winning.
The same could be said of Rafa lately, when he also tense up at crucial moments and then lost. Maybe, just maybe, when Fedal are at the cusp of history making, they couldn’t help but become anxious, esp when they’re older now (and Rafa after all his injuries) and know that there won’t be that many opportunities left.
Actually TB tends to favour the big servers imo.
Consider the case of Kyrgios vs Rafa, Kyrgios isn’t a great returner of serves but he’s great with his serve, and so he won all five TBs played against Rafa, until this Wimbledon.
Fed’s records at playing TBs is one of the best if not the best, winning so many against his two main rivals. This Wimbledon is a bit strange, when Rafa could win two TBs in a row against Kyrgios for the first time, and Djoko winning all three TBs played against Fed (and Fed losing all three TBs in a single match??).
Perhaps both Rafa and Djoko did play the big points better than their opponents, despite not having much success in breaking their great serves during the normal service games until the TBs.
By the way, did the crowd irk Nole so much today that he spared them the boob throw?
https://twitter.com/NickKyrgios/status/1150210777162190848
Nick posted a tweet beseeching Federer to win. The gif replies to it are hilarious
Fed is Kyrgios’ hero. To Kyrgios tennis should be played the way Fed played, not the way Djoko or Rafa played. To him, tennis on clay is not real tennis, but tennis on grass is.
I think deep down he despises both Rafa and Djoko, perhaps thinking their more defence base tennis are not what real tennis should be.
He’s entitled to his own opinion, but I’ve to say I marvelled at what Djoko could do on the tennis court. I mean he really has the perfect game to win during this tennis era; he’s certainly the best player of this decade (the decade of the 2010s) whilst Fed was the best in the previous decade (the 2000s).
Djoko’s game is tailor made to play (and win) on the slowed down surfaces (from the quick 1990s).
I think God likes tennis. While I also believe hard work, talent, natural ability and mental toughness all play a part, I also think there is a spiritual aspect . How many times have you heard the phrase, “nick has a God given talent?” Not everybody has his gifts no matter how much they pracrice.
Call it mental toughness, being in the zone or whatever you want. How do you explain the things we see on the court? Fed had everything going his way, he lost. Guys win tournaments who were lucky losers, the top guys get beat by a player ranked in the 100’s and we shake our heads.
God is energy and has a vibration to it, quantum physics tells us so. The higher the vibration, the more intune you are. Ever get up in the morning and things go wrong? You say to yourself, “this is going to be a bad day.” And guess what, it is. All you have to do is change the vibration and the day changes. You attract what you put out there.
I don’t know what was going through Novak’s or Roger’s mind. What I do know is Novak seemed the calmer of the two, played he game, took his chances and won, while Roger played with caution. I think Novak had more of a belief and a higher vibration.
Yes, I think God likes tennis. You call it mental toughness, I call it being in the “Spiritual Zone.”
If you split the tennis fanbases between big 3..I think it’s 55 fed,35 rafa and 10 nole. 90 percent of the tennis fanbase is sad now as their fav lost. The 55 percent very dejected as a golden oppty lost. Rafa played timid n lost.
Sanju and lucky, Rafa playing timid and losing is easier to take than Rafa having two match points in a row on his serve and still losing. Honestly it’s unbearably painful. Roger is really strong taking this loss very well. If it was me, I would have had nightmares for weeks.
Somebody said maybe Roger should have served an underarm serve in one of those match points and I was like “No!!” but on second thought… why not, if nick can do it to nadal in several matches, why not. The match would have ended and djoko may be pissed but well… it’s a legitimate shot. What do you think?
Happy, I doubt Fed was thinking about that. Fed probably thought he could make it with his great serve to win the Championship point. Its easy to say on hindsight what he should or should not do, but at that moment, who could tell what would happen next?
Like what Rafa always said, ‘this is sport’, you win some you lose some. Rafa lost some painsaking matches (AO2012 final for example) but he won the FO 2013 SF in a similar fashion (this time its Djoko’s turn to feel the pain).
Can’t win all the time even when you’re the great Roger Federer, same for great Rafael Nadal and the great Novak Djokovic.
Those two match points really came out of the blue,maybe that threw Feds concentration .Up until then he was playing catchup
I couldn’t sleep last night. Nightmares. I remember thinking what if he closed the match at USO at 40:15, and then won a Wimby in or 2015 plus yesterday. He would be 23 slams, while Novak 13.
In 2014 or 2015 one of them*
Ha ha Eugene, we Rafa fans also thought about the narrow losses that he had – AO2012, 2017; Wimbledon 2007, SF of 2018 Wimbledon.
They happened, whether we like it or not. In the past, I was also bothered by such losses and was thinking about them for days or weeks. Nowadays, I recovered rather quickly as I told myself that life is full of regrets, we cant have everything we wished or desired for. There will always be disappointments along the way, we have to learn to accept.
Furthermore, its not our own career or our lives we are talking about, but some tennis players who we don’t even know personally, why are we so affected by their wins or their losses?
Nicely said lucky. I found myself asking the same question. It’s not my life. He has a lovely family, he’s a great tennis player and a multimillionaire. So, I should took it much easier.
Probably I will stop watching tennis soon. I don’t want to give my internal power to anyone.
Sorry u feel like that eugene…yeah!…i know it hurts…but,It will get better soon…
U’ll be strong okay?
Thank you Mira. It’s all good.
Hey Eugene! I had problems sleeping last night and I am a Rafa fan. Fed was the best player at wimby and a big reason he lost yesterday was however much of a genius he is he is 6 years older than Nole and had played an incredibly emotionally gruelling match against rafa.
So let’s put his performance in its proper context because it was immense.
I.find the urge by some to big up Nole at the expense of fedal very irritating. Yes he played very well to win but the draw was markedly in his favour. Last year he lucked out by playing on an indoor grass court in a de facto final. So can we please keep some perspective?
Thanks amy. Most people don’t consider these subtle nuances.
Some complain he doesn’t get enough love. Yes, of course. Playing at Wimby under roof on a sunny day or playing Bautista in a SF…thinks just work out his way.
I find this comment ridiculous Amy. Give credit where it’s due. Whatever said and done at the end of the day it is who wins that matters especially if done over long periods of time which is exactly what Nole has done against both Rafa and Fed. You need some perspective and objectivity.
Glad you find it ridiculous AVN! Good for you!
But Amy,Eugene..however few years down the line who will remember all this…all that people will remember who won what and not the circumstances.
I know sanju. That’s why the slam count don’t reflect totally their value. My opinion. It’s very subjective. A lot of factors have to be considered.
I think the young players, like Kyrgios, Tsitsipas should get inspired by this W’s SF and final match, and try to do the same. Enough of watching it on TV.
The replies to nick’s tweet are vicious and hilarious but cut the guy some slack. He admires fed n wanted him to win. Who didn’t?
What a match!!!
No Fed, no Rafa
Novak will probably get the highest SLAM tally, the way he’s going. (like it or not)
Fed will still be the GOAT because without him the others wouldnt be half as good. They got most of their inspiration from Fed.
“Jim Courier”, this is really not here or there! You could as well say that Fed wouldn’t be as good as he is now, if the other two GOAT- candidates hadn’t forced him to improve. Without the other two es cannot even be sure if Roger would still be around, since the competition would be totally uninteresting. Fact is that the Big Three have pushed each other to greater levels all the time. And that helps them to retain their superiority over the rest of the competition.
Djokovic won because he is better player than Roger. He is 5 years younger and won only slams less than Roger.
Djokovic won because he is better player than Roger. He is 6 years younger and won only 4 slams less than Roger.
He is not a better tennis player. I know this for sure. But he manages his nerves better. As a tennis player, he lost the match yesterday. Less point won. Could have easily been 3:0. Go home Goran.
Eugene when Fed came on court he didn’t seem as extremely dialled in and focused as he was against rafa. If he had been he would have won. It’s practically impossible to maintain such a focus and such intensity over 2 matches. And being a couple of years short of 40! does make a difference.
I appreciate your honesty
BTw that approach that Fed played on match point when he came to net…Rafa did exactly the same thing on break point in the fifth last year and got passed in exactly the same way!
Lesson for future matches is don’t come in on a dubious approach on an absolutely crucial point daring Nole to make the pass!
it is a measure of his match playing abilities that both last year and this he was able to make the pass under enormous pressure.
Yes but Amy it was dangerously close. It could have well gone out. I don’t think he executed it to just land on the line or just within it few cms away.
Nole has now snatched 2 wimbledons from fed n rafa when both were playing better than him. And guess who has nole to thank most in all this – isner . He screwed rafa last year by making match play indoors n this year too by forcing a tb last set.nole should send isner 30 percent of his prize money :+)
Haha yes sanju! let’s blame isner and his servebot tennis for everything! Strange how nervous Fed got in the tiebreak s….partly age I think…ie one fears unconsciously one won’t get another chance. I thought Nole looked a lot calmer from the get go …although apart from.the tiebreaks Fed played wonderful very gutsy tennis. But he lost it in the tiebreaks as much as Nole won them with so many.ues.
Did you read Novak said. He was waiting for the 5th set tb to come. He kinda knew looks like that fed will gift him the tb.
Correct, that was a terrible approach to come in on. Fed had a brain snap. Should’ve played a drop shot.
I only just saw the match stats! So Nole had only 2 more winners than ues and Fed had 32 more! And 25 to 10 aces makes it all the more bizarre he lost 3 tiebreaks! It was very strange all the ues Fed made in the tiebreak s when normally he plays them so well.
Last year in rafole Rafa and Nole had practically identical stats with same number of winners and overall number of points was only something like 3 different. All stats in this match are heavily with fed.
Dunno why I feel quite so sad for fed and Fed fans but I do! Hope Fed wins another major!
Yeah!…me too amy!…I always don’t like to c Fed lose…B4 he defeat Rafa continuosly now,i always hate to c him lose against Rafa even tho i want Rafa to always win…i know it didn’t make sense hahaha…but i felt the player of his stature & great should always win…
So,to c him lose last nite was a bit hard…but not as hard as Rafa!hehe…
But that was an especially tough loss for him with championship points mira! How do.you see Rafa’s loss?? Let me know! I am going out now but will be around later.
Uso is good chance but he has not won there since 2008. So odds look bleak. However after the painful 2008 wimBy loss,he won uso 2008. However he had horrid time there last year with the roof and said he could not breathe.
Rafa fed final at uso will be great with of course rafa winning.
Never saw a match when the winner stats are so much unbalanced.
I remember Fed won more points at AO this year as well, but like 3-5 points more, nothing compared to this.
This year at AO against Tsitsipas wanted to say.
Rafa paid Novak the pain of 2012 ao in French 2013.
Rafa and fed both have to pay back wimby 18 n 19 to nole. So cmon rafa n fed, buck up n hand him a similar close loss. They are capable,just have to stop freezing at key moments. Closure is a must and for that payback is necessary on a tennis court.
Congratulations to Novak and all his fans for winning a mindbogglingly close final! I don’t want to assess here and how if Novak is really the player who deserved to win Wimby 2019. His draw was laughably easy and I really cannot say that he was the better player in the final, although he was certainly the one with the better nerves in the end. For Roger this must be heartbreaking. He was much closer than in 2008 against Rafa.
However, it is much easier to assess Novak’s overall standings in the GOAT race. And here he performed absolutely outstanding over the last year. Winning four out of five slams is just great. Kudos, how he pulled himself out of his slump last year and returned to the top of the game. And it’s now absolutely possible that neither Rafa nor Roger but Novak will end up with the highest slam count, since he is the youngest of the Big Three and overall not very injury prone.
The US Open will be very, very interesting…
When Novak was suppoSed to go on a tear after 2016 fo and clean it all up and even win the calendar slam that year is exactly when he went haywire for 2 years. Hence no one can say anything what will happen. He may win 6 more or win none. Let’s wait and see what happens .
True, Sanju, we have to wait and see. But Novak seems to be mentally much more stable than in 2016. And I think, he is in an overall better position to win more slams than Roger and Rafa. Of course, he won’t be always as lucky as at this year’s Wimby, but overall he performed at an outstanding level at the slams over the last year.
As I said, the US Open will tell us more…
His former coach Boris Becker said in an interview for a German newspaper that Novak is driven by the ambition to catch and overtake Rafa’s and Roger’s slam count. Considering Novak’s mentality I can well believe that this is true. And he definitely has a good chance to achieve his goals.
Feds presser yesterday kinda suggested he is resigned to his slam record getting broken. He said I broke someone’s and someone will break mine. Interesting to see who of the 2 he expects to do it.
Interesting! But it is totally clear that only Rafa and/or Novak can do it – maybe both of them, since it’s highly unlikely that in the forseeable future another player will break his record.
Considering Novak’s younger age and that his body is less injury prone than Rafa’s, I give him a good chance to achieve this goal, although winning four more slams is of course not a cake walk. The young guns aren’t ready, yet, to stop him.
Novak seems extremely keen to get under the skin of Roger too. He himself got the us open 2011 into the conversation in the presser rubbing it in. He also has made no bones about the historic number one and saying he is close to achieving it. Last time when he went AWOL, he saw what happened with Fedal racking up the slams, especially his beloved AO. He may be extra motivated to not let that happen again. What is scary is how he got over the disappointment of losing at the French where he was going for four in a row. 😳. If he wins three slams this year, he would have matched Fed in that department too and he would have done it by winning almost all of those slams beating Fedal along the way
If Rafa etwas healthy – which is always a big IF – he can definitely win a few more FO titles. But not many more. Rafa’s biggest disadvantage against Novak in the GOAT-race is, that it is difficult for him to win other slams than the FO. He can do it, but everything has to click. And even if he plays a great overall tournament like at the 2019 AO and Wimby, he may always have to clear the extra Novak-hurdle (and also Roger-hurdle) in the final. And this seems to have become very difficult for him on non-clay surfaces. Rafa has only a chance in the overall GOAT competition if he starts to win again against Novak (and Roger) on non-clay surfaces.
This loss stinks if you are a Fed fan. He had a golden chance and he blew it. At his age these opportunities might or might not come again. Its very disappointing.
That’s true, and I really feel for Roger and all his fans. This must really suck. He was so close to another Wimby title, and if you look at the stats, his Overall tennis was better than Novak’s – just not at the big points. And yes, who knows, how many more chances Roger will get for winning a slam?
As a Rafafan I felt a bit like that last year, when Rafa lost his very close semi to Novak. I felt back then, that he had blown one of his best ever chances to win a third Wimby trophy, since I’m absolutely sure that he would’ve won a final against a tired Anderson. And as we have seen, Rafa didn’t get another shot this year, although he played some excellent grass court tennis. And at their age – especially at Roger’s – these chances may not come back again…
I felt the same after Serena lost her final. Because she wasn’t in an excellent shape, she was very lucky to be even in the final, mostly because she didn’t encounter any top players on the way. But Simona Halep played on a different level altogether, which Serena couldn’t match anymore.
I think all this talk about the stats favoring Fed and the new rule being unfair to him, really overlooks a few things. Anyone who has watched this sport knows that in tight matches it can come down to one or two points. It is not the case that the one who plays best is always the winner. We have seen it too many times. Also, stats do not tell the whole story. There are intangibles that sometimes win matches. Who is the strongest mentally, who plays best in the big points. Who has the most physical and/or mental strength overall. Sometimes it can even be a bit of luck.
I do not feel the new rule was unfair to Fed. The fact is that if you believe Fed was the better player, he had his chance to win the match. Before the new rule went into effect. One reason for the new rule was to protect the players from unnecessary injury. I remember that marathon match with Isner and Mahut. After the match, Isner was plagued with injuries for a while. He had a tough time recovering. Another reason for the rule change is that watching guys trading aces for hours is not scintillating tennis. It is not Isner’s fault. It is about not letting a match go on interminably. No one would want to see either Fed or Novak injured needlessly playing an endless match. I actually think they should have made it less than 12 games for the cutoff point to go to a tiebreak.
No way would I have foreseen Fed losing thee tiebreaks. But the argument that the third TBy was unfair because he lost the previous two TB’s does not make sense. Anyone would bet on Fed having the advantage in a TB. Part of winning means prevailing in TB’s. But in this match Fed did not get it done. Very surprising.
One can say Fed should have, could have, would have won. But it did not happen. Two reasons were losing the TB’s and those two championship points. I would not bet against Fed with two match points on the line. So there are things that do not show up in the stats that are important.
Last year Rafans did not find much sympathy for their contention that the roof being closed the next day when it was bright and sunny, cost him the match. That was also a very close match that turned on just a few points. We felt the arbitrary closing of the roof affected the outcome of the match. Now it’s Fed fans turn to complain about fairness and the new rule. It stings when your favorite loses a match like this. It hurts until it doesn’t hurt anymore.
But it’s not always the player who was better overall. We all have seen it. That’s the way of it in extremely close matches. There has to be a winner and a loser.
One final observation. I would not make any assumptions about how many slams Novak will win or if he will exceed Rafa and Fed. These three are all still playing. So they will all have their chances. Novak had his slump that no one saw coming after he had probably his greatest victory. You just never know inbthid sport. It is premature to assume anything or make conclusions about a GOAT. Like Rafa has said in the past, it has to happen on the court.
NNY, the discussion about the tennis scoring system was asking a totally hypothetical question and comparing it to the golf one, not an excuse for Federers loss .I never said the 5th set tiebreak was wrong , and the scoring system is what it is.Yet you somehow manage to bring Nadals loss last year because of the closed roof,into the conversation, and no, this loss of Federers isn’t too hard to take, because I never expected him to beat Nadal (match of the tournament, IMO) and then Djokovic .His GOAT status has only improved even more by the quality of this Wimby performance.
Not comparing Rafa and Fed’s losses. Fed simply had it on this racket and just blew it. Painful loss and hard to digest really. His game is such a thing of beauty on grass…just like Rafa’s is on clay.
NNY, I haven’t followed the discussions: are there really a lot of people who say that the new rule was unfair to Fed? This is nonsense of course! It’s a sensible rule and it was in place for both players. Since Roger is the better server, it should’ve even favored him more than Novak! Blowing three tie-breaks is incredible and Roger has no one to blame than himself!
I also think it’s not right to blame the closed roof for Rafa’s semi final loss last year. Yes, he likes it better when it’s open, but he needs to adapt to whatever conditions there are – and we don’t know for sure if he really would’ve won if the roof hadn’t been closed.
Novak was lucky last year, when He narrowly won against Rafa and and encountered a tired Anderson in the final, and this year, too, because he had an exceptionally easy draw and was lucky that Roger somehow managed to lose three tie-breaks. But you have to praise his overall slam performance over the last year!
Littlefoot, we may never know for sure that Rafa would win if the roof was open, but the possibility was there, since he had some BPs where Djoko saved with unbelievable serving.
In indoor conditions where there’s no wind to affect his serve, Djoko served incredibly well to save all those BPs. Djoko isn’t a player who’s good in dealing with windy conditions (his FO SF this year was very much affected by the atrocious windy conditions), so who knows, he might not serve well enough in not so perfect conditions (for him) outdoors during one of those BPs? Of course that didn’t guarantee a Rafa win, but still, there’s a higher chance for Rafa than no chance at all (against Djoko’s serve indoors) – that’s my opinion only.
One more thing about Rafa’s and Fed’s loss to Djoko at the past two Wimbledon – both of them rushed to the net and got passed by Djoko at important moments during their matches.
I remember Rafa had a SP in the third set TB, had Rafa served a great serve, an ace perhaps, he would then won the third set. Instead, he served and then rushed to the net, expecting a CC return from Djoko, Djoko hit a DTL shot instead to pass Rafa at the net to level the TB, from then Rafa went on to lose the TB.
The same thing happened to Fed (during one of the Championship points I think), Fed rushed to the net only to be passed by Djoko’s passing shot.
I think both of them should learn a lesson from these encounters, that Djoko is gutsy and willing to take risk when he’s in desperate moments in the match, so I feel Fedal should think simple by concentrating on serving a great serve to win the point right away, a one two punch maybe if not an ace.
Has it ever occurred to you that the closed roof advantage could be in the head? Its still an advantage, even so.
So you think tree hugger Novak is just an indoor kinda guy? Nothing to do with it being an advantage. Just a preference?
I’ve already explained, Djoko is affected by windy conditions more so than say Fed or Rafa, not that he couldnt play or win outdoors with near perfect, ie not windy, conditions.
Djoko is not hopeless outdoors, I’m sure anyone knows that.
littlefoot,
I did catch up on the discussion and it was said that the new TB rule was unfair to Fed. I read that Novak supposedly said that he was waiting for the TB to go into effect. Last night there was some discussion among Fed fans about changing the scoring rules. That is when you are going down the rabbit hole. I think the US Open has it right with a fifth set TB. I think that is best for the players and the fans.
As far as last year, it may not have made a difference if the roof was open. But the rule was arbitrary and stupid. If it’s sunny then the roof stays open. It was a tough loss and Rafans had to deal with it. It always seems unfair when your favorite loses a very close match.
I still cannot believe that Fed lost 3 TB’s. I expected him to win when he had those two championship points. Fed has won so many matches where he won the TB’s. He’s got that serve and the ability to hit aces when he needs to do it.
Novak is really a beast when it comes to just hanging in there. He looked so out of it in that second set. Yet he can find another gear when he needs it. He is never out of a match. He also plays the big points do well. I agree about his fearlessness. He goes for it when the match is on the line. Right now it does appear that Novak could dominate in the immediate future. But I still am not going to make any assumptions about what will happen. Rafa and Fed are not going anywhere.
Stats don’t often tell the whole story.
Djoko is easily the best player of this decade (2010-2019). He has already won 15 slams in this decade (with one more chance to come at the USO), won 4 WTF and … 28 Masters already in this decade! Four more chances from Canada to Paris, and one more chance of another WTF! Just incredible!
He’s more dominant now than Fed was in the last decade (2000-2009).
To me what is amazing about him is the defending skills and his boringly efficient tennis.
When you say Rafa or Roger I quickly imagine their beautiful Tennis skills and their movements. When I hear Novak, it feels dull, a machine that’s annoying and hard to beat. It lacks the emotion of Fedal. There is no sauce in that salad. So, he somehow managed to get close to Fefal, without being better than them. Very very clever.
Becker and everyone else should stop complaining that Djoko doesn’t get enough love. You can’t push the 75% of people to swap their favourite for Novak, no matter how good he is.
It’s in a way almost as asking a hot girl to like a very nice guy. She’ll most likely go for the Casanova.
I agree Djoko is efficient like a machine. Rafa is beautiful on clay especially with his gliding on the clay surface, whilst Fed is graceful moving and hitting on grass.
Djoko is machine like hitting those flat penetrating shots from both wings and in all directions, that make him so difficult to play against. What’s special about him is his gutsy nature, his willingness to take risk in do or die situations yet he hardly missed his shots in such moments.
I also marvel at his flexibility, his quickness around the court, moving efficiently and even sliding on the HCs without breaking his ankles. What’s more amazing is his ability to return serves (he must have very sharp eyes and great hand and eye coordination), second to none.
He wears contact lenses so I don’t know how sharp his vision is. I remember the WTF in 2010 when he was playing Rafa in the RR and lost one of his lenses down inside his eye. Very painful, I’d imagine but what was amazing was he still didn’t play all that badly half-blind. He must have some other senses.
Totally agree! Novak has been the best player of the last decade – hands down. His success is absolutely mindboggling, especially since he achieved them while competing against two other GOATs! Like him or not – those are the facts. And while we don’t know the future for sure, I think he has an excellent chance to become the overall GOAT, since Roger is at the end of his road and Rafa’s body has already held up much longer than all experts have predicted. I cannot imagine that Rafa’s health will permit him to play until he is 38 years old, like Fed.
One thing I was thinking last night about how silly the whole goat thing is and how you can’t compare different eras is the question of grand slam surfaces. I think at one time in the past they were all on grass weren’t they? Please correct me if I’m wrong! But the point is is that they have changed and we accept what we have at the moment merely because it’s the status quo. But the status quo as it is radically favours Nole who is widely regarded as the goat on hard courts as we have 2 hard court slams. Fed is widely regarded as the grass court goat and Rafa the clay goat. But simply because of the conventions of the status quo there is only one grass court slam and one on clay. If you changed it so there were 2 on grass Fed might have 29 slams! Or equally if there were 2 on clay Rafa might have 30! The numbers then look very different don’t they? But Nole definitely benefits right now because there are 2 slams on his best surface although he hasn’t actually won more than Rafa at the USO.
My point is really that quite arbitrary elements favour different players at different times.
This is of course true, and that’s one reason why it’s hard to compare for example Rod Laver’s achievements with Roger’s, Rafa’s and Novak’s achievements. But Roger, Rafa and Novak played all under the same conditions – and “if, if, if doesn’t exist” ☺ We to have assess and compare the achievements of the Big Three by looking at the given conditions. The argument that one player would be better than the others if there were only more clay court of more grass court slams, is not valid.
It’s an abstract argument so it doesn’t have to rely on those conditions being in place. That’s the whole point.
I don’t believe in the whole silly goat thing anyway. I’ve always said that here.
That’s your personal opinion, and you are absolutely entitled to it. But IMO that doesn’t make the concept of a GOAT silly. Personally I think it’s a fun debate with a lot of subjective elements. And since he Roger, Rafa and Novak have been playing more or less under the same conditions, their achievements are easier to compare.
The GOAT debate didn’t originate in connection with Fed btw. I can clearly remember that it started all out when Pete Sampras was chasing Roy Emerson’s count of 12 slams, and it gained traction when Sampras managed to win slam 13 and 14. Most considered him to be the GOAT then, and it was very hard to imagine that his record would be broken anytime soon ☺ Well, he had preciously little time to enjoy his record.
Littlefoot I do like Nole. He is usually the player I cheer for if rafa is out that just wasn’t the case yesterday. I don’t have a problem with acknowledging his achievements because he is undoubtedly an amazing player who has many personal qualities I admire. But I don’t like some people going round puffing him up by knocking Fedal down. Rafa has had so many injury problems throughout his career that it’s hardly a level playing field for making comparisons let alone if you look at a player like poor Delpo who would surely have won more slams if he hadn’t suffered so many injuries. I dislike the absence of context when people make comparisons and then I am an emotional person who tends to fight over what I love most, which in tennis terms is Rafa Nadal. I don’t pretend to be objective!
Decades ago it was grass and clay. There were indoor wood surfaces. No hard courts at that time. That’s why some feel that past champions did not have it as hard as now. But it is why we can not compare the generations and different eras. Rod Laver Ron the calendar slam two times. The fact that none of his rivals could do it is a testament to that achievement. It was only grass and clay. But being the only one to do it is significant. A player can only play in the surfaces that exist. They had wood rackets back then. It was nothing like today. But I believe that the greatness in each generation of players should be recognized.
NNY, I agree with you! It’s very hard to compare players of different decades, since the conditions have been so different. For example I think it’s ludicrous to compare Margaret Court’s achievements with Serena’s achievements, which have been far greater. But it is possible to compare players who played more or less in the same period, as Roger, Rafa and Novak have done. It has nothing to do with personal preferences. There are objective data which can be compared. And although I’m not at all a Novak-fan, I have to concede that he has been the best player of the last decade.
Nny so they were never played entirely on grass? For some reason I thought once they were. I honestly don’t know much about previous eras once you get beyond fairly recent history. I thought for some reason Laver had one all 4 on grass in 2 calendar years so obviously I have got things wrong. I have never seen archive footage of Laver. Would be great to see some.☺
amy,
There was always clay. But the others were grass. I can remember when the USO was grass! I was very young then, but I have watched tennis all my life. When I see YouTube videos of Rod Laver now, it looks they they were playing ping pong! Compared to today’s game, it was archaic.
Amy, I couldn’t agree more on your part about the different surfaces vs goat debate.
Thanks Eugene! Makes a huge difference doesn’t it?
Hope you are feeling a bit better about Fed now?.I know how much these losses hurt and that one was very painful. I am sure he will win another major.
Thanks amy. I am feeling better, I decided not to think about it too much. Do you play any tennis btw?
I agree that the GOAT thing is totally silly. If you choose the mythical GOAT title purely on slam count there is no argument anyway. Was it only after Pete Sampras that people came up with this GOAT thing? Something to write about and eventually something for fans to brag or moan about on the internet?
Three of the slams were on grass for quite awhile. Roland Garros was always clay. The USO was the first to change, somewhere a little after the Open era. First it went to clay, green clay I believe for a few years, then to this weird new cheap and easy to maintain surface: hard court. Jimmy Connors owns the distinction of being the only man to win it on all three surfaces. The AO moved to Melborne, switched from a December date to a January date and was played on hard court.
Anyway, at the moment the slam count is unarguably 1) Federer 20, 2) Nadal 18 and 3) Djokovic 16. So you can’t call Djokovic the GOAT yet. You don’t get credit for possible or even probable future achievements. Is he the best hard court player over the last 10 years? Absolutely. Is he unbeatable? Not at all. Even Rafa isn’t — quite — unbeatable on clay. Will Djokovic be the grass goat? My guess is no. Roger has eight Wimbledons and a slew of other grass titles. I think Sampras got 8. Novak has five now and not a lot outside of Wimbly.
Aussie Open return to grass would be amazing.
It would, but it won’t happen.
Fantastic match by two of the all time greats…privilege to watch it.
Scoot, I love your always fair and positive comments☺
Ah,this has to sting a lot for all Roger fans and the man himself! He completely dominated the match and absolutely had it on his racket. At the time he lost the first set,I wondered if that wouldn’t come to haunt him in the end and it has proven costly to him. Given both players level,I got the impression that Fed should have closed it in 4,I mean Djoko himself said post-match that he was just trying to hang around to the TB’s.
Federer should have capitalised,especially because Djoko’s a level below his best during most of the match and he was dominating every aspect of the match!
Djokovic has just proven himself as the ultimate nightmare for Fedal once again,he’s such an amazing competitor,fights until the end and if he has a glimpse of an opportunity,he’ll make you pay for it.
However,there are many positives to take for Federer,the astonishing level he displayed at his age goes to show that he’s gonna keep having his chances to add to his slam tally!
As for Rafa,I hope for him to stay injury free till the end of the season,I sense he’s gonna have a pretty decent shot at the USO and finally getting his maiden WTF would be amazing! Still,like at the AO, Rafa looks cursed to triumph there 🙁
About the NextGen,isn’t it time for them to start showing up at the Slams? Are the gonna be another LostGen,drubbed and crushed by the Big 3?
I guess this kids don’t have the commitment and belief to beat them,now that we are in the technology era,it’s way more motivating for many to be social network stars rather than challenge for the biggest things in the sport,very sad indeed…
Nope, not fair to say that about the next gen. I see both Tsitsipas and FAA are talented enough and serious enough with their tennis career to make a mark for themselves instead of just being happy to be some social network stars (maybe Kyrgios is one!).
Tsitsipas had already made a slam SF at age 20; FAA had made the third round of Wimbledon at age 18 this year, so I see both of them as the next big things in tennis. It’s no mean feat beating Fed in a slam on the fast HC of the AO, and Tsitsipas lost narrowly a heartbreaking five setters against Stan at the FO; so he’s talented and serious with his career and I’m glad about that.
Tsitsipas will be the player that I’ll like to be a fan of, after Rafa retires from tennis; hope it’s another few more years for that to happen.
Well yeah,Tsitsipas currently leading the boat of the young guys(alongside with FAA who seems to potentially have a bright future ahead of him),however I don’t feel it’s enough at all. What about those russian guys (Medvedev,Rublev,Khachanov) that keep saying they’re bored of the big 3 and are ready to make a move and just keep falling apart against lesser players. Many of the so called young guns don’t have it mentally to suceed against the very best,IMO.
Among the Russians, I think both Medvedev and Khachanov are quite good, they’re in the TOP ten now. Both do have the ambition but I feel they may win a slam or two in future after the big three left the scene, by I don’t think they’re multiple slam winning material.
I find some limitations in their game – Medvedev is more a baseliner, he hardly moves to the net, so his way of winning matches is to be involved in long rallies, not a good way to win imo as you get older. He does have a big serve though, so that may help a bit.
Khachanov is a big server/hard hitter kind of guy; I think he can play well on clay and HCs, but again his game is quite limited, not having much variety. Also, he’s not exactly a great mover.
I still can hardly believe that Roger hasn’t won this match. It isn’t just the mindboggling fact that he lost 3 tie-breaks, although he has overall been serving so very well. But he was also serving for the match – on his best surface, on grass! This has to sting terribly, and as a Rafafan I’m very glad that this time Rafa hasn’t been the one who had to stomach another disappointment against Novak. I really wonder how Roger will work this out and go on from there. Objectively this was a very good tournament for him. While he didn’t have a very difficult draw, he should be delighted that he scored another win against his old foe Rafa on his turf after losing against him in Paris. He also played some terrific tennis in the final – especially considering his age, and managed to keep up his level almost until the very end. And yet – I can’t help thinking that it would’ve been less cruel for him and his fans if he had lost the match in a more clearcut fashion.
But life isn’t always so clearcut .Im reminded of ten year ago when 60 yr old Tom Watson had a putt to win the Open at Turnberry but missed by a whisker.As a result, he went on to lose on a playoff. Is that better or worse than not making the cut which not many would have batted an eyelash at?
Ain’t no good way to lose a match! (For this fan, anyway. For Rafa there is. He takes a lot of “personal satisfaction” from having played well and lost. Not sure Fed is built that way, but I don’t “know” him that well.)
So, it’s not meant to be Fed’s Wimbledon. To think that some here said that the stars are aligned for Fed to win his 9th Wimbledon! I mean to have to beat first Rafa in the SF and then Djoko in the final, hows that ‘the stars aligned for him’??
Fed is no longer that young and to expect him to beat Rafa and Djoko B2B in a slam when they’re the TOP two players in the rankings? Yes he came close but Djoko not playing at his best level could still produce those stuff to snatch victory from defeat, hows that ‘star alignment’ for Fed. The stars aligned for him only when Rafa is drawn to face Djoko in the SF; it’s the luck of the draw, had Djoko had to fight against Rafa in the SF, maybe a physically fresher Fed in the final would be able to beat Djoko to lift the Champion trophy for the 9th time.
Actually, ‘the stars are aligned’ for Djoko to win his fifth Wimbledon once the draw was out and Fed had Rafa in his half of the draw. Djoko had it easy throughout the tournament until the SF and Final; he passed both tests despite not at his best level; I think the easy draw played a part, not making him too exhausted for the SF and Final.
A nice analysis by Tignor of those blown championship points.
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2019/07/roger-federer-two-match-points-novak-djokovic-2019-wimbledon-final/83577/
Wow! Watched the highlights again. Cannot fathom how things panned out. Here is a stat- it seems Roger has lost serve to love only twice at wimbledon in his whole career, one of those to Rafa in the semi. At 40-15, he lost 4 straight points to drop serve, almost akin to dropping serve to love. How crazy is that!
And the other thing is how often have the top 3 had match points and lost. But for the fed-djoko pair to have done it three times, with four match points on federer’s serve- one of the best in the serve department. You cannot make such things up
I think it’s down to nerve. Tignor’s article talked about those missed chances; I feel Fed was tense during those moments, he couldn’t help it, after all the defeats to Djoko at the slams. It happened to Rafa too, vs those two rivals.
After watching the highlights I realized that Fed also had two break points at 11-11. On the second one Djokovic came to net on the second shot after his serve, with a pretty weak approach, very similar to the one Fed hit at 40-30 on championship point. Unlike Novak, however, Fed couldn’t make the pass and hit it to Djokovic’s FH. Novak mis-hit the FH volley but it landed deep in the court, and after a weak Fed lob, Novak hit an overhead winner. You can see Novak laughing to himself after the point; he knew he got lucky on that one.
I remember that Joe. He could have served for the championship again and close it before the tb! He was soooo close, I don’t know but Djoko usually loses those kind of net points. Everything was aligned for him. He barely volleyd that ball, and barely was in. If that was out, I believe Fed would have served for the championship that time. I feel that Roger also could send that ball at the net a little bit more aggressive on the lateral side, Djoko just managed to pinch it.
So, how how is that possible? To save these kind of decisive balls? And not one, but many during a match to barely escape the loss? I mean he could easily make a mistake in those moments as he many times does. They all landed in. Perfect star alignment? Maybe as lucky said, it was not Fed to win this one…
https://www.theringer.com/2019/7/14/20693870/novak-djokovic-roger-federer-wimbledon-final-2019
Nice article on Novak
Almost 100 winners, 45 more than Novak. Why didn’t he bring them in the decisive moments?
Still hurts. I hope Fed is okay.
Read this in a YouTube comment:
While NATO was bombing Belgrade all schools were closed and, as a kid,
Djokovic took time to play tennis while others were hiding in shelters.
He wrote, in “Serve to Win,” published by Ballantine, “We’d go to the site of the most recent attacks, figuring that if they bombed one place yesterday, they probably wouldn’t bomb it today.”
Now imagine how tough this guy is.
Well, I thought about karma yesterday. To what the west have done to his country. But that’s to deep.
What NATO did to Serbia was monstrous and cowardly at the same time, bombing from very high altitude so that they didn’t lose a single pilot, while killing thousands of Serbian civilians.
I don’t know about karma, but it’s hard to believe that those experiences had no effect on Novak’s resilience. No question that he’s the mentally toughest player out there.
Of course Joe. He was exposed to danger from a little kid. That had a huge impact on his mental side.
Perspective is vital. Makes one understand the bigger picture and 2 missed match points on one’s serve seem unimportant compared to what happens daily to some poor people on our lovely planet.
You make it look as if it was NATO that was the invader and doing the ethnic cleansing of thousands…
Monstrous and cowardly you say.. tell that to the Albanians
Good guys and bad guys weren’t that clearcut in that war. Many atrocities have been committed during the breakup of former Yugoslavia, and the NATO had some justification for their actions. But specifically the bombing of Belgrade with the city’s large civil population was very iffy.
It’s interesting to contemplate how these events may haveshaped Novak’s oncourt mentality. While it’s tempting to connect the dots, it’s maybe not that straightforward. Novak was anything but a fighter and mental giant when his early career started to take off. He was known to be a hypochonder and a quitter. Roddick famously teased him about this. Only after he changed his diet and started to take up mental exercises he became a mental giant.
As to the match against Fed: it wasn’t all about Novak’s mental resilience. Fed helped him a lot to win this match. Managing to lose three tie-breaks, losing the serve while serving for the match and squandering three matchpoints – maybe, this had more to do with Fed’s mistakes and nerves. The stars truly aligned for Novak this year with one of the cup-cakiest walks into a final I have ever witnessed and with an opponent who managed somehow to squander a match which he should definitely have won in so many ways – but somehow managed to lose nevertheless. This should not diminish Novak’s overall slam performances over the past year which has been perfect.
There is no doubt that Djokovic is a fighter and a mentally strong player. But I think this win makes him mental side appear bigger and scariest than it is.
What’s the probability that Fed will lose his serve game at 40:15 against Djoko in general? Like out of 100 samples, chosing one randomly, it’s about 10% (I think much less, but let’s say 10%). Then what’s the probability that in a few more games he will miss a bp at net against Novak? It’s about 50-50. It’s the point Joe mentioned. I think from a sample of 100, he would win 55-60. Let’s say half in our example. Then what’s the probability combined he loses that double game point and then loses the bp at the net: 0.5*0.1= 5%. I don’t believe so much in luck, but events occur randomly and develop long term patterns. For people that believe in luck, he was unlucky. His stars were in vacation during the match. He picked 1 if those 5 losing tickets from 95 winning ones that evening. Why? I don’t know. Not everything depends on us I guess. And we have to accept that fact.
The fact he’s 6 years older would be a good reason if he lost clearly to a better player. But not here. He overplayed his opponent. Even at 45 he could still close the match at 40:15.
My question here is not about tennis. But how to deal with uncertainty. One a better player wins deservedly, we assume he was a weaker player of he loses. But that’s not always true either in boxing, football, tennis etc. You know very well we can’t blame age here or praise Djokovic mental strength. When somebody hits an ace, your mental strength accept it, but not stop the ace.
I guess that’s why many (not all) people ar religious. I guess there are some questions they don’t have answers to and start believing in a Higher Power. For them Djoko’s win is a part of God’s plan even if we don’t see yet the big picture.
What about people who don’t believe in God? Isn’t it scary that something happens just randomly? Not according to rules, morals, despite your hard work etc.
Writing this makes me feel less stressful.
Rafa has no problem believing that the outcome of close matches sometimes depends on “luck” or randomness. Sometimes he just says something like “[AO2012] was for him (Djoko), this one was for me [RG 2013]. He said something similar comparing his loss to Djoko at the Wimbledon semi last year to his very close win over Thiem in the quarters of the USO. That’s sports. You prepare the best you can, you go out and play, but sometimes it’s so close it literally comes down the way the ball bounces. Accepting we do not live in a totally deterministic universe is the way to keep your sanity.
No question that part of the result of the match was pure luck, but that’s true in any match. It was clear to me that Fed played more tentatively on the big points than he did in most of the match, and that was the difference. Even the, Novak had to come up with huge shots in the biggest points, like he did with the pass down 30-40, match point. Setting luck aside, Djokovic came up with the goods when it counted; Fed just didn’t. Roger had too many chances to chalk it all up to luck.
Losing 4 points in a row couldn’t be all bad luck he was tentative IMO
Actually it totally could be bad luck, just unusual. Throwing 4 heads in a row in a coin toss isn’t all that uncommon.
In that case Big Al, he should train less, he already knows how to play best tennis, and instead visit a food psychologists and try to overcome his anxiety over Djoko (which probably began after those 2mp missed at US). If he played as freely as he used to to against Roddick, the match would finish at 3:1.
A *good psichologist.
Posts here are not giving Nole enough credit. God, if there is one, doesn’t intervene in a tennis match. That’s ridiculous. Like all those teams that pray before a match that they will win, as if they are special and deserve such a thing. That’s not how it works. There’s no magic tricks or favors from the universe. Balderdash.
If Rafa had beaten Federer in the final similarly, by sneaking out the win in the tb’s, an area Federer normally excels, people would just strike it up to Rafa out maneuvering Fed. There would not be so much angst about it.
Federer could not take his chances when he had them. Nole watches his opponents very carefully. Maybe Federer not quite as much because he likely figured he had this match – his serve is superior. It’s a pity he lost when he should have won. But I could say the same for Roddick in 2009.
Other matches have frustrated me. Rafa beat Verdasco in 2009 AO SF but Verdasco had more points and I thought he was the better player, in general. Rafa stung him on the biggest points. At that time I thought for sure Federer would win the final but his back failed and Federer couldn’t serve or keep up with Rafa by the 5th set. Rafa outlasted everybody! Then I hated when Federer cried and as I thought then, ruined the trophy ceremony. It’s taken a lot of time for Federer to accept losing a GS final anywhere near gracefully, imo. Serena was finally graceful losing to Simona this year. But she acted all weird and embarrassing (to me) losing to Osaka at US Open 2018.
Federer didn’t hesitate when asked what the first thing he would do after the match. He sternly replied he was going to “forget it” meaning literally put it out of his mind. No tears, nothing- just get it out! And by now, I believe he can do it. He has to if he wants to continue to win in a GS final vs Nole or Rafa, anyway. Roger seemed irked enough to forget it – I believe he will. This time I was proud of how Roger handled it.
I hope he recovers and goes for it at US Open, AO, and Wimbledon. FO is a ridiculous prospect as long as Rafa is in the game.
ratcliff, I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is – at least in my world view – no tennis deity or Wimby fairy who cruelly intervened and denied Roger the title. Roger managed to lose this match all by himself and Novak won without help from braven. I also agree that Novak often doesn’t get the credit he deserves for his mi
often astonishing achievements. However, I’m neither a fan of Novak nor of Roger – I don’t know if that makes me more impartial or not – but I have a hard time to say that Novak really was the deserved winner of this year’s title. He was of course insofar as he won all points fair and square without any iffy umpire decisions. And he managed to do what all the other six players, Rafa included, could not so: win against a great playing Fed. But it feels strange nevertheless.
But in the end all titles count, and there’s no reason for Novak’s fans not to enjoy this title. He has proven often enough that he is able to win even the most difficult matches. And this was certainly a very difficult match and he was the one who managed to get through. That’s all.
Correction: that should read :”…without help from heaven…
It’s okay Littlefoot. Most people, at least speaking and writing in the English language do not think Novak is not worthy compared to Fed and Rafa. And why: He’s nothing special, he’s a machine, he’s uncouth and barbaric. I’ve heard and read all of those things in English. I can’t read Chinese but I’ve read other Novak fans saying how much he is appreciated there. And he is treated with love and respect there.
I can’t say the same for the crowd at US Open or Wimbledon. I’m so proud how Novak handled the boo’s and the lack of respect when he won. There are a lot of xenophobes in my country and I do think there is reason to believe xenophobia plays its part in the turning Novak into a villian, just as Lendl was and Martina, and Seles were back in their day.
Perhaps it plays into how strongly I support Novak at this time. But honestly, he won me over with his mind and skill. I did not start appreciating him until 2010 US Open. I didn’t dislike him but I was more done with the Fedal fights by then and just wanted to enjoy tennis – all tennis. I was happy and relieved when Delpo won US Open 2009. And it was glorious to me in 2011 when Novak really began to believe in himself and dominate. Also was a fan of Andy Murray, so many of his losses stung at the hands of Novak.
Anyways, I see Nole’s athleticism, intelligence, skill every bit as fantastic and charming as Rafa and Roger. I’m happy he’s pushing in on their territory. I love Nole. Roger and Rafa and tennis needs him, imo. Tennis would not be as interesting or exciting without him. It takes all three (preferably four, when Andy was part of it) to make tennis so great in the ATP.
Of course, WTA has always been great 😀
Sorry, I got my words twisted in that first sentence..It should read:
…most people, at least the ones speaking and writing in the English language do not think Novak is worthy compared to Fed and Rafa.
I just have to correct the misinformation. about Fed having any back problems in the 2009 AO final. Fed had by far the easier semifinal and had an extra day of rest. Fed had every advantage going into that final. Even now I still am amazed that Rafa found a way to win it. One of the most courageous feats in tennis. Rafa even said that he was a bit dizzy at times because of fatigue and only one day of rest after that brutal semifinal with Verdasco. I remember Rafa struggling at one point and getting someone to come out and rub his leg during the change over. I thought at that point that maybe he would not be able to do it. I still do not know where he found the strength to go five sets and ultimately triumph.
There was nothing wrong with Fed! This idea that he was having back problems and lost because of it, is simply not accurate. Don’t try to demean Rafa’s achievement by talking about some imaginary back problem with Fed.
No. Nny,
I apologize if you took what I said for an opportunity to demean Rafa’s achievement of winning AO 2009. Not at all, and I remember cringing at the trophy ceremony when Fed couldn’t stop crying. That felt like he was distracting the moment of Rafa’s win.
In 2014 wasn’t Rafa carrying an injury when Stan won the AO?
I just remember reading something about that – like I remember reading about Federer’s back in 2009. Also it did appear that his serve was not working in the 5th set so I have believed it- Fed was having chronic back issues in his early career (from what I remember reading). But that doesn’t distract from Rafa’s win. And whatever Rafa’s injury was during AO 2014 doesn’t take away from Stan’s win. However it does help explain the shock and surprise I felt at Stan beating Rafa. I wouldn’t doubt that something was wrong with Rafa in that final.
So sorry Nny. I don’t discount any of Rafa’s achievements.
It was a back injury for Rafa in the Final of AO 2014.
https://sites.google.com/a/nadalwin.com/mallorcans/team-roster-and-stats/2014/australian-open-2014
As I said, I believe it.
Tennis requires mental strength that allows the best to execute when it matters at the tightest moments.
That’s what wins slams.
I hear all this rubbish about Nole wanting to be loved as much as Roger which is rubbish. He’s looking for respect which would start by fans not openly cheering loudly on double faults and obvious unforced errors. The crowds even openly cheer against him vs other players in hopes that he’s eliminated to open the draw for Federer.
All true Hawk.
It’s very sad and the way Nole is treated at this point in his career actually hurts me. Appreciation and respect would be enough. But it is downright mean for him to do his best and be hated not loved and appreciated or respected for it.
Ratcliff, he is not hated. Come on, people respect Novak.
ratcliff, I agree with you that Novak deserves every bit as much appreciation for his extraordinary tennis skills as Roger and Rafa. And boos because he is beating the darling of the masses are of course totally out of line. I also thought that many journos seemed to mourn more Roger’s loss instead of celebrating Novak’s string of successes at the slams. Personally I believe that he has a very good chance to better Rafa’s and maybe even Roger’s slam count. However, no tennis fan can be forced to love him, since this kind of fandom is sort of irrational. And Novak may have to accept that the majority of the European and American Fans prefer Fedal. Outside of GB Andy Murray wasn’t exactly a crowd pleased either. But I think there are plenty of tennis fans in Novak’s own country and elsewhere in the world who appreciate and love what he has to offer. Therefore it’s probably better for him to settle for fairness, respect and appreciation. As I said: love and adoration cannot be forced.
What Eugene? What I’ve seen at US Open and Wimbledon is far from respect. And I’ve read plenty of hate online and in the media. Sheesh
As Littlefoot says, I can’t do anything about it. But I will state my opinion here. Just as you do. And I disagree with you – Fed fans on these blogs don’t usually give a shit about Fed opponents being disrespected – an alien concept to a Fedfan mind. It’s all about Fed.
Federer I respect. Fed fans tho, they are often hard to like.
rc,
I had no knowledge of a back injury with Fed. But I think I came down too hard on you. I did not mean to do that. I am sorry for being too harsh.
I know that it’s been hard for you here with the disrespect for Novak. If you read my posts I tried to be fair to both him and Fed. I can be more objective if Rafa is not involved.
I have been frustrated with some of the comments here. I think that Novak deserved it. He won three tiebreaks against Fed. That is not an accident! He was tough in the big moments in the match. He has this uncanny ability to raise his level of play when the match is on the line.
I think Novak’s mental strength is what helps him win matches like this. I tried to give both of them credit. But Fed had his chance to win. He did not get it done. People can keep saying that Fed had it in his racket, that Fed was the better player, that Fed deserved to win. But the fact is that he was not better in those tiebreaks.
I respect Novak’s effort. I especially dislike the crowd being so supportive of Fed. It’s happened before when they played. Sometimes it gets out of hand when they play, like cheering for double faults or errors. Fed had the crowd with him all the way in that fifth set. They seemed to want to will him to win. But it was not enough.
You should be happy for your guy.
NNY, Rafa had actually similar acceptance problems throughout his career, and he had to deal with sometimes hostile crowds especially in Paris. I think that the French still don’t love him. But they have grudgingly accepted that Rafa at the FO is simply a force of nature which comes over them very regularly every spring for almost 15 years now and they have learned to live with this phenomenon☺ But Rafa doesn’t seem to need the adoration of the masses as much. He always seems to be in his own oncourt-world and accepts when an opponent is more popular than he is. It doesn’t seem to affect how he plays.
Thank you, Nny.
And it’s true, Rafa handled the adversity and rude crowd in Paris like a true pro and champion.
Murray said he used negative crowds to his advantage by playing better.
It’s been harder for Nole to find that strength without ripping his shirt or something or going nuts.
McEnroe was a natural at using negativity to his advantage.
I’m happy for Nole, littlefoot.
Sorry about my defensiveness today.
Yeah…agree with hawks..
Novak received unfairly treatment his entire life…
Remember at AO 17?He played 2 or 3 straight day matches under the scorching heat..and Rog played 6 or 7 straight matches at the evening!
I think the crowds is part to blame everytime Roger lose…They shouldn’t cheer Rog all the time & they shouldn’t cheer Novak error’s too..coz all that s$%t stuff only fuelled Novak even more…What Novak said the other day?”When they chanting Roger’s name,i pretend they said my name”…But sorry to say Fedfans never learned their mistake…The wounded animal is very dangerous u know…
Ive a lot of like and respect for Nole but just prefer Fed and Murray .
Eugene, I agree with you that Novak’s mental strength may seem more impressive and important than it actually was. This was really more about Fed having some mental lapses and losing all the big points, than Novak winning it. Of course, Novak needed to hang in and he couldn’t afford to make any mistakes at crucial moments, and he never gave up. But still – Fed really should’ve won this match. There’s no good explanation for losing three tie-breaks in a row – at least not for a player like Fed on grass, where he is a brilliant server. And the new 5th set tie-break rule should’ve been advantageous for a strong server like Roger!
I don’t know if the knowledge that Fed really should’ve won this match and was the better player over long periods, makes this loss easier or more difficult to digest….
And the loss at the end of this epic match cannot really be compared to the lost final against Rafa in 2008. In that match Fed had been already trailing 0-2 when he started to catch up by playing occasionally brilliant tennis, and he was never really on the verge of winning that match, while it would’ve been devastating for Rafa if he had managed to lose this. And Rafa was the one who squandered a few match points before eventually securing the win. There was never the vibe of “oh, Fed should really have won this since he was so much better”. It was more a case of: “oh well, kudos to Roger for trying everything and not giving up, but in the end Rafa deserved his first Wimby title”. This year I cannot say wholeheartedly that Novak deserved the trophy. This is totally irrelevant for the big picture of course, and statistically there are no undeserved or deserved slam titles.
A lot of analysis to explain why Fed couldn’t serve just one more ace ! It was totally down to him
But,in a way,it was down to Nole too why Rog couldn’t serve it out,right?
Nerves & mental block at crucial moments…I think if at the other end is Rafa or other player,i don’t think Rog had a same problem…That’s my honest thought…
Yes of course, there were a lot more points in the match that could have gone either way and Fed might never have got those two points.But since he just served two aces it’s hard to say he didn’t choke a little .In other words,maybe Nole does play the big points better.
Yeah Big Al…That’s the reality….Nole ALWAYS play big points better than Rog & Rafa(after his 2015 slump episodes that is)…
https://youtu.be/H5y1nbovoMY
Eerie similarities of 2009 and 2019 match points
It’s a very interesting discussion here, and I realize how few dedicated Novak-fans frequent this site! Again: congrats to every single one of them☺
Fans of an athlet are a special breed. And while they don’t really show up here, Novak has a flock of pretty obnoxious fans, too😉 – especially, when strong nationalistic undertones creep in.
My preference for Rafa developed originally many years ago because I couldn’t stand anymore the fawning adoration of fans and also many tennis journalists for Federer. I specifically hated the concept of Federer as a religious experience, since this idea is so disrespectful towards Fed’s opponents. It’s as if Federer’s way of playing tennis is a force of good and beauty which ultimately needs to prevail. And this is balderdash IMO. Yes, Fed’s tennis can be very beautiful. But a competitive sport isn’t like ballet. There are many ways to play and win a tennis match, and beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. And when this teenager called Rafa came along, who dared to challenge the hacking order, while playing tennis very differently and in a completely unique way,I thought that this was a breath of much needed fresh air and saved tennis from becoming completely boring and predictable. Who would’ve thought at the time that Rafa would evolve into a brilliant allrounder and last long enough for becoming a serious contender for the GOAT throne, which seemed to be reserved and just waiting for Fed? Many fans and journos eventually adapted their world view and the concept of Fedal as a force of good emerged. And then Novak came along and challenged this concept, too, lol! This wasn’t in the script, and that may be one of several explanations why Novak wasn’t able to win over the majority of tennis fans. There’s more to it than that, of course, and Novak isn’t completely blameless in the matter.
In the end it’s all just tennis – a beautiful sport, but there are more important things in the world, than who wins or loses a tennis match, and at least IMO religion should stay out of sports altogether.
As a Fed fan, the positive takeaway from this match for me is that Federer outplayed the two top players in the world, 5-6 years his junior, in consecutive matches. Yes, he only won one of them. And I don’t think anyone would say that either Nadal or Djokovic were at their best for those matches. But I would chalk that up mostly to Fed’s incredible play. He just has to keep plugging away, and I think he has a good chance to win one of the next two slams.
Joe, I know Fed is different than me. But after losing a few matches on the edge against Djokovic in the past, I would focus a lot on how NOT to repeat the same mistakes. Maybe I would have done some mental exercise, prepare my mind on how to react on those critical points before I step into the court. Why he didn’t learn anything from that?
It looks like against Nadal, Fed can play relatively free nowadays, but not with Djoko.
Also, in his defense I will repeat this many times. The fact that 90% wanted him to wim and cheered Novak’s double mistakes, didn’t help him at all. It only added huge pressure on a tired body and exhausted emotions coming from a difficult SF. On a neutral field, he would’ve won 3:1. Sometimes is better to be the ‘undesirable’ so of you win, it’s a bonus, if you don’t- anyway everyone was against you.
I’m very surprised at how good Fed was this year. He lost against Tsitsi, but still played well. Then he won a master on hard. RG was a success too. Not anyone can reach the SF there. The grass season was almost perfect. Fed is a monster. Constantly showing up in the QF, SF or finals of a grand slam. I miss Andy. Imagine Andy-Novak and Rafa – Fed at this Wimby SF.
Hi Joe, I respectfully disagree about fed. There’s nothing positive about this match with Djoko at all. If one loses two championship points once to a rival, That’s ok and maybe a fluke. Twice, then there’s cause for concern. Three times? Then it’s a pattern.
I’m a fed and Rafa fan. Fed completely outplayed nadal and rightfully won. But against Djoko, he has an issue with Djoko at a slam for almost a decade now apart from French 2011 n wimpy 2012 n it’s not age related at all. He needs to address that. Whether it’s mental or wotever it is, Eugene is right. He needs to address it and fix it ASAP bc it will happen again and again. Djoko is so confident playing against fed these days that I don’t want fed meeting him again at any slam bar the French until he fixes this problem. I’m sorry but it’s becoming too painful for me to watch him blow matches he had no business losing to the point i’m No longer surprised.
I’m more confident about fed beating Rafa on any surface except French than with Djoko. He has some issues with Djoko which he must fix. I say that with all respect to fed bc I believe he’s a better player than djokovic IMHO and is the GOAT. Numbers don’t lie.
Well, he really really helps Djoko become a goat. Instead of 13 – 23 slams, it’s 16-20. 10vs4 difference. How much difference can make not being able to close the match you worked so hard for 4-5 hours.
Agree with both of you that Fed needs to work on focusing in the big points. I think the main thing is not to get tentative and go for his shots. Personally, at 40-15 champ point I would have hit a hard body serve directly at Novak. Fed rarely does that and it would have been a surprise, also likely to come back in the middle of the court. And at second serve I would have gone for a bit more on the serve and then definitely try to hit the approach better. Not play it safe.
Having said that, Fed was literally a couple inches from hitting that first serve over the tape at 40-15, and it looked like it was going right into the T for a 3rd consecutive ace. It was after that that he tightened up, imo.
Nny, I checked the stats of that famous Roddick – Fed at Wimby 2019 , which made feel sorry back then for Roddick. I thought nobody deserved to lose.
I hoped those stats would favour the American and will make me feel better about the recent one…
But not really. Roddick had 74 Winners, 33 UE, 213 total points.
Fed hit 107 winners, 38 UE, 223 total points.
2009, sorry
Eugene,
Thanks so much for providing those stats. I said that I was not able to watch the Djoker match. I just could not do it. I never could get through a replay. I was a Rafa fan by that time, but I initially like Roddick when he first came in the scene. I was still looking for a favorite. No one ever replaced Borg for me. But I was so happy when Roddick won his first USO. I thought it was the beginning of a great career. But Roger Federer came alone and tried as he might, Roddick could not beat him. Before Rafa no one could beat Fed. I just got so frustrated seeing Roddick losing all the time to Fed. I have spoken about it being a big part of why I stopped watching tennis.
Fortunately, in 2007 people around me finally convinced me to watch tennis again to see this young Spanish player named Nadal. It was the 2007 Wimbledon. All I had to do was watch one match and I knew. I had found the second tennis love of my life.
Even though I was a diehard Rafa fan, I really wanted Roddick to win the 2009 Wimbledon. Rafa was injured and could not play. So I was cheering for Roddick to get that second slam. It was unbearable. To see him come so close. I could not watch the end of the match.
I appreciate you looking up those stats. They do not surprise me. It really does bring the reality of it home again.
Many thanks.
😀
Sorry, stupid autocorrect made it Djoker instead of Roddick at the very beginning of my previous post. Djoker makes no sense! It should be Roddick of course.
nny, thanks for the reply.
Fed will retire soon I guess. I have to start looking for a new ‘addiction’ 🙂 He has to play one handed backhand.
Tsitsipas? He plays like a Fed.
I doubt Fed is retiring anytime soon. I mean view this final both negatively and positively; the negative part we’ve spoken about it quite a lot.
The positive part is: Fed at 37 almost 38 could even play at this level, beaten one nemesis and almost beat the other, having the upperhand in almost every area. So, there’s still hope – he may not need to beat both of them B2B, and I feel that it’s at the fast AO HC that Fed may have the upperhand against both his nemesis.
The grass surface seemed a bit slow this year (as attested to by the players, not my opinion), so Djoko even when not playing at his best was still able to get many balls back despite not having a good ROS day. I’ll fancy Fed’s lethal serve on the fast HC of the AO. Also, AO is at the beginning of the year, so Fed will be physically fresh for his then 38 yo body.
I really feel that by the end of 2021, ie 9 slams more into the future, all three of them may end up with 21 slams each!
Fed wins one more AO to get to 21 slams (7 AO, 1FO, 8 Wimbledon, 5 USO). Rafa with 1 AO, 14 FO, 2 Wimbledon, 4 USO. Djoko with 8 AO, 1 FO, 7 Wimbledon, 5 USO.
I still haven’t decided, but Tsitsipas is in pole position, for now. Still need some time to make the decision.
Interesting point of view lucky. Imagine all of them ending with 21 slams each. That would be crazy.
I would love if all three GOAT contenders would end up with the same slam haul☺
Each player deserves to be called GOAT, since they all have achieved something which is almost impossible to be replicated by future players. And they have compiled their phenomenal records while having to compete against each other – which multiplied the difficulty! If the other GOATs hadn’t been around their records would probably be even more incredible.
Funny, how everyone seems to gravitate towards Tsitsipas. Mats Wilander also endorsed him, and predicted a glorious future for the young Greek. However, Mats says a lot of things – and he often contradicts himself two minutes later 😉 Therefore I don’t pay a lot of attention.
I’m not sure which one will do what. I have a lot of hope; particularly like Tsitsipas and FAA, but right now it’s hard to say.
It’s to difficult to tell – just have to wait and see. Right now if feels like forever since I watched them all competing. Many go out too early in tournaments that count most to know how strong they are.
I read that Federer is skipping Montreal. He will aim for Cincinnati and of course US Open.
Hoping the brackets next week have more big names in the draws, both young guns and old favorites: both WTA and ATP.
Found a good post on Tennis-x, (a blog that has enough mean and bullying Novak fans that especially hate and disrespect Federer), that I don’t post there anymore because I don’t like or agree with that Djokovic cult. But Patson rarely posts and when he/she does it’s a breath of fresh air because Patson is part of the good Nole fans that used to post there. Sorry to say the remainder of them are grudge holding cultists with their own narrative that discounts Federer’s accomplishments. And I’m not one that discounts Fed or Rafa. Nole is still catching up to them, even though he’s my favorite of the three, I can admit he needs more time. Long after they all hang up their racquets, and the false narratives created out of emotions and grudges have been thrown out, is the time to name the historical GOAT.
————————————–
Patson Says:
Best article I’ve read about the match, and about Djokovic.
https://www.theringer.com/2019/7/14/20693870/novak-djokovic-roger-federer-wimbledon-final-2019
The highlight of the article: “He’s learned to rely on himself because he can’t rely on the crowd. Of course this is all speculation—I can’t see inside Djokovic’s mind—but it has explanatory value during matches like today’s, when he wins in ways that seem to defy all tennis logic. It also has an irony that feels Djokovician in its essence. He wanted us to love him and we didn’t, so he figured out how to overcome us as well as his opponent. We helped him learn to win by wanting him to lose”
That is so poetic.
July 14th, 2019 at 11:34 pm
ratcliff/Elizabeth, thanks! Very astute observation, and to me it is psychologically totally plausible. Reminds me a bit of my younger son who had always a very troubled relationship with his teachers, and both sides we’re at fault. He was one of those bright kids who learned to read and write before he started school. Therefore he was bored out of his mind in his first school years. The teachers didn’t realize initially that he could read and write, and he was too proud to tell them. He started instead to make a lot of trouble. He and all his subsequent teachers started their relationship on the wrong foot and hated each other heartily. Therefore my son decided, the only thing he could do about this, was becoming the best student in as many subjects as possible without having to rely on the sympathy of his teachers, and he succeeded. He used all the negative energy between himself and his teachers and turned it into something positive while relying mostly on himself and his mental resources. It was clearly a case of: “I will show them…!” Who knows – maybe this makes Novak mentally so strong at important points, too!
Why do some people dislike or disrespect Djoko so much?
I dislike him some time back, when after beating Rafa on clay in 2011, his and his team’s celebration were simply disrespectful towards Rafa. Also, after beating Rafa a few times back then to claim his no. 1, he and Tipsy put up a short video clip with Tipsy pointing a gun at Djoko’s head, with a message asking how much Rafa want to pay him (Tipsy, for gunning down Djoko). I thought that was outrageously distasteful, even though they quickly removed that short clip (probably after receiving bombardment from some Rafa’s and some neutral tennis fans).
But, since then, Djoko has matured quite a bit and he’s alright now. He should be given his due respect for what he has achieved so far. I guess it is more to do with the Fedal fans not liking it that he’s threatening Fedal’s legacy, and it seems that Fedal have no way to stop the Djokovic train.
He may end up like a Lendl, a champion but with not many people, relatively speaking, liking him. (I know he has his own legion of fans, perhaps only fewer than Fed’s or Rafa’s among his peers).
Lucky, I agree with your assessment! I’m not a Djoker fan, but he deserves our absolute respect. His achievements are phenomenal. Many Fedal fans simply resent that he is challenging Fed’s and Rafa’s legacy, and that he is coming dangerously close.
I dislike many of the Djoker’s fans, though. They can be very agressive, disrespectful and chauvinistic. They are definitely not my cup of tea. But we should always separate the players from their fans.
Heh. If I judged tennis players based on their online fans I would not like anybody! But it’s not about tennis or fans. Certain posters simply love to hate.
Sorry Luckystar but i disagree with your assessment of djokovic. I think you are wrong when you say some people dont like or disrespect djokovic bc of threatening FEDAL’s legacy. Please give some people some credit and it has nothing to do with his fans. He is a phenomenal tennis player and a case can be made that he may be better than federer and nadal bc he leads them in their head to head.
But saying that he has matured and is alright now is a stretch and you know it. It’s his attitude that’s the problem that rubs people the wrong way. Look at that twitter post he released before this year’s australian open final. Even though he demolished nadal and that was not surprising because many expected him to win but not so easily, still that tweet with that picture was totally unnecessary and disrespectful to nadal. He has not changed that much, much less matured a bit with that kind of tweet. Imagine if nadal behaves like that in the french open final. Nadal has earned the right to be arrogant and dismissive of opponents in the french open given his record but still he remains outrageously humble and very respectful of everybody sometimes to a fault.
This is the same with serena williams. Her attitude at times is truly terrible and even though she’s the GOAT, some people cant stand her bc of her attitude. I’m a big serena fan (she’s my favorite in wta) but even I cant stand or I’m left speechless at times trying to come up with a reasonable way
to defend her attitude and outbursts and there are numerous examples.
So those people do not dislike or disrespect djokovic, they respect his tennis and his achievements but his attitude is nothing to write home about and thats the issue for these people.
I don’t agree with ‘Djokovic deserves more respect’. I respect him, and so do many Fedal fans. So, what more do they expect us to do?
I don’t blame fans at Wimbledon or Miami that cheer for Fed too much (I think that actually puts pressure on him and doesn’t help). Imagine I attend a final between Fed and Djoko. I respect Djoko, don’t make any noise when he double faults but am very happy when Roger wins each point. How’s that disrespectful? Imagine that 85% feel like me. Why blaming and criticizing those people? Being a successful tennis player is not the equivalent with being liked by people. Using those criteria we should adore doctors and pilots, at least they are more useful.
Eugene, not giving more respect, but due respect.
You can’t deny that there were people cheering Djoko’s faults or DFs; those people should be the ones learning to give Djoko his due respect. Those are the people I’m talking about, you do not need to include yourself in that category when you didn’t cheer on Djoko’s faults.
Happy, I don’t follow twitter, not a follower of Djoko’s btw.
At least he had stopped those atrocious distasteful video clips. He has since toned down on his celebrations and gives Fedal their due respect even when he has beaten them in important matches.
I don’t see the need to continue to dislike or disrespect him. If he’s that good or that great that one day he surpasses both Fed and Rafa in his achievements, then we have to applaud him and congratulate him for that, whether we like it or not.
If you still can’t get over Roger’s loss in the Wimby final then read this … http://www.138mph.com/tennis-the-better-player-lost-the-mens-wimbledon-final/
No doubt Federer was the better player overall. But you can’t analyze the match without mentioning that Djokovic played the big points better. Novak was the better player in the tiebreaks, and at many key points elsewhere in the match. You could argue that Federer lost those points more than Djokovic won them, due to Roger’s tentative play. But you can’t deny that Novak was the better player when it counted.
Joe, agree. I believe Fed didn’t manage well his energy. Every player goes through cycles in a match. He gave his best during the sets, but was left to nothing in the tbs. Should have find some ‘rest’ in those sets and preserve some mental energy for the tb, at least for the final one. This was a 3:0 or 3:1 match. Just shows how low the margins are on grass.
I’m not a specialist in courts speed, but if they indeed are making courts slower, they are just destroying this sport.
Maybe the court speed is the underlying reason why Roger tends to be tentative on big points.
Look at his tb against Nadal and then the ones against Djoko. He was totally different. This is very strange. He played as if he knew there is no point to try, he will win it anyway. Very strange. Maybe there is something we don’t know.
I still can’t believe he won 3 sets clearly and lost 3 tbs… Al 3 of them. Winning 1 would’ve been enough.
Sorry for the errors.