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.
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…