2019 Men’s Wimbledon Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Roger Federer

Who wins?

  • Djokovic in three sets

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Djokovic in four sets

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Djokovic in five sets

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Federer in three sets

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Federer in four sets

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Federer in five sets

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
an ace is an ace, a good passing shot is a good passing shot, a good approach is a good approach. What is the difference between an ace hit by Fed or ace hit by Nadal? they are aces, unreturnable serves, same thing. Is there a difference? What is the difference between a good approach shot into the corner, struck at 95mph if Roddick or fed hit it, tell me.

not only are you a moron, you are also suffering from trauma, and totally incoherent. What is it? Nadal loss in semis? or me and cali exposing you for who you are? keep your wits about you man, don't have these mental episodes, they are concerning.

Um, an ace is an ace, but Karlovic is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more likely to produce one than Nadal, the same way Federer is far more likely to produce a great forehand approach than Roddick, since he's got way more skills. Meaning that when he doesn't, it's uncharacteristic for him, hence the criticism. No seriously, it's illegal to be this fucking stupid. So we're not talking about a terrific approach shot that would have the same effect had it been hit by Federer or Roddick, we're talking about a BAD approach shot that Federer is far less likely to produce than Roddick. Get it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Front242

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Um, an ace is an ace, but Karlovic is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more likely to produce one than Nadal, the same way Federer is far more likely to produce a great forehand approach than Roddick, since he's got way more skills. Meaning that when he doesn't, it's uncharacteristic for him, hence the criticism. No seriously, it's illegal to be this fucking stupid. So we're not talking about a terrific approach shot that would have the same effect had it been hit by Federer or Roddick, we're talking about a BAD approach shot that Federer is far less likely to produce than Roddick. Get it?


So basically what you are saying is that the expectation there is for Federer to hit an A+ approach shot that barely stays in and skips up on Djokovic. I don't know why you think that is such a reasonable thing to ask for, especially in that situation. It's a lot tougher to hit those shots when you have to think about them than when you are relying on instinct.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
So basically what you are saying is that the expectation there is for Federer to hit an A+ approach shot that barely stays in and skips up on Djokovic. I don't know why you think that is such a reasonable thing to ask for, especially in that situation. It's a lot tougher to hit those shots when you have to think about them than when you are relying on instinct.

Will you guys stop with the strawman bullshit? Nobody's saying he should have been perfect (and this "A+"). Just maybe not go for the wrong shot selection with bad execution to boot? That sounds reasonable to you?
 

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Um, an ace is an ace, but Karlovic is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more likely to produce one than Nadal, the same way Federer is far more likely to produce a great forehand approach than Roddick, since he's got way more skills. Meaning that when he doesn't, it's uncharacteristic for him, hence the criticism. No seriously, it's illegal to be this fucking stupid. So we're not talking about a terrific approach shot that would have the same effect had it been hit by Federer or Roddick, we're talking about a BAD approach shot that Federer is far less likely to produce than Roddick. Get it?
No... federer is not that more likely to hit a better approach shot than roddick. Where is your evidence? Federer, is however, much faster than roddick, more athletic and a better volleyer so to pass him, holding approach shot constant, is 10 times more difficult. Roddick had no business coming to net as he sucked at net, was slow, was not as athletic.

You think sampras hit quality approach shots every time he rushed the net? Tell me! He often came to net 70 times in a match, you think in every single time he struck amazing approach shots??? Tell me... he still won many of the points because he put pressure on opponents, closed the net fast, was an excellent volleyer. He even came in behind second serves and trash approaches and won volleys even against agassi!

It’s a myth that you can only win net points after perfectly struck approach shots... federer has won hundreds of volley points behind approaches similar to one he hit against djokovic. What the hell are you on? Get off the hallucinogens.
 

Jelenafan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
3,676
Reactions
5,009
Points
113
Location
California, USA
However I cannot agree with a championship final being decided on a final set tiebreak. To me the ending it seemed surreal. Particularly as Wimbledon prides itself on it's heritage including preserving most of it's traditions such as no play on the middle sunday. Even so, i expect djokovic would still have prevailed and eventually would go on to break Federer's serve to win the title.

I actually could see the reasoning to have only the CHAMPHIONSHIP match at Wimbledon in the fifth set go on until someone wins two games in a row.

It’s not like an earlier round where if you win 28-26 in the fifth you have another opponent waiting to play your exhausted ass.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vince Evert

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
OH MY FUCKING GOD!
Show me the evidence.

I can show you evidence of federer and even sampras coming in and winning points at net off many many similar approach shots to the one we are focusing on. As always broken, i have shut you up...

The big difference between federer and roddick weren’t the approach shots but their speed closing the net, athleticism, volleying skills. Edberg, sampras, federer, rafter, none were particularly better than roddick with the approach shots, but WAY better at volleying.
 
Last edited:

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
i just randomly picked a highlight reel of Federer volleying. Let's see the quality of the approach shots here.



1st volley vs Roddick. He hit it down the line, not particularly deep, Roddick easily got to it but hit a slice. Djokovic could've easily gotten to that and hit a backhand. This was was slightly better than the one he hit vs Novak but not by much.

2nd volley vs Nadal, this was a garbage approach shot, he returned Nadal's serve with a weak return, put right at Nadal's forehand, Nadal couldn't pass him. This was NOT better than the approach vs Djokovic, Novak could've destroyed that shot

3rd volley, N/A as it was off a serve

4th volley. This was one was struck deep, this was was good quality

5th volley. Garbage approach, a weak slice right into Roddick's backhand. Novak could've crushed that slice

6th volley. Decent approach, struck it deep

7th volley. This one was struck EXACTLY how he struck the approach vs Djokovic, almost a MIRROR image. In fact, this was was even lower quality, IMO.

8th volley. Not struck particularly hard or deep, opponent had good view at pass. Djokovic could've easily passed Fed off this approach, Hewitt couldn't

9th volley. Decent approach to Nadal.

10th volley. He hit a weak push shot right into opponent's bh, the guy couldn't pass him. Novak could've easily crushed that


So... out of 10 volleys, 1 is N/A as it was off the serve, 3 approaches were clearly better quality, 2 were questionably/slightly better and the other 4 were same or lower quality approaches.

Biggest MYTH out there is that Federer has won at the net by consistently hitting incredible, perfectly struck approaches. Most of the time, the approaches have been average and many times not that great. Federer has won many of those at the net not because he has hit perfectly struck approaches but because he is 1. quick closing the net 2. puts pressure on opponent 3. has length 4. is a great volleyer.
 
Last edited:

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Show me the evidence.

I can show you evidence of federer and even sampras coming in and winning points at net off many many similar approach shots to the one we are focusing on. As always broken, i have shut you up...

The big difference between federer and roddick weren’t the approach shots but their speed closing the net, athleticism, volleying skills. Edberg, sampras, federer, rafter, none were particularly better than roddick with the approach shots, but WAY better at volleying.

Federer has a better forehand, better backhand, better slice, better shot selection, better shot placement, better shot depth, better awareness, better movement into the net...a combination of these factors is required to hit an approach shot. There's also of course, years worth of data of Roddick being burned on mediocre approach shots. But yeah, there's no evidence, you fucking idiot.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
i just randomly picked a highlight reel of Federer volleying. Let's see the quality of the approach shots here.



1st volley vs Roddick. He hit it down the line, not particularly deep, Roddick easily got to it but hit a slice. Djokovic could've easily gotten to that and hit a backhand. This was was slightly better than the one he hit vs Novak but not by much.

2nd volley vs Nadal, this was a garbage approach shot, he returned Nadal's serve with a weak return, put right at Nadal's forehand, Nadal couldn't pass him. This was NOT better than the approach vs Djokovic, Novak could've destroyed that shot

3rd volley, N/A as it was off a serve

4th volley. This was one was struck deep, this was was good quality

5th volley. Garbage approach, a weak slice right into Roddick's backhand. Novak could've crushed that slice

6th volley. Decent approach, struck it deep

7th volley. This one was struck EXACTLY how he struck the approach vs Djokovic, almost a MIRROR image. In fact, this was was even lower quality, IMO.

8th volley. Not struck particularly hard or deep, opponent had good view at pass. Djokovic could've easily passed Fed off this approach, Hewitt couldn't

9th volley. Decent approach to Nadal.

10th volley. He hit a weak push shot right into opponent's bh, the guy couldn't pass him. Novak could've easily crushed that


So... out of 10 volleys, 1 is N/A as it was off the serve, 3 approaches were clearly better quality, 2 were questionably/slightly better and the other 4 were same or lower quality approaches.

Biggest MYTH out there is that Federer has won at the net by consistently hitting incredible, perfectly struck approaches. Most of the time, the approaches have been average and many times not that great. Federer has won many of those at the net not because he has hit perfectly struck approaches but because he is 1. quick closing the net 2. puts pressure on opponent 3. has length 4. is a great volleyer.


Your logic is fantastic. So because Roger makes unbelievable volleys and is more athletic and therefore CAN get away with poor approach shots, it means his approach shots are just as poor as Roddick.

I truly feel sorry for your friends.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Also, this moron's (@MikeOne) evidence is 10 volleys in a Youtube video highlighting the best volleys in a career of a player who literally hit tens of thousands of them. Mike, you idiot, it's a highlight of the 10 best volleys...it's not going to show you a straightforward approach followed by an easy put-away volley. My God you're dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Front242

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,949
Reactions
3,896
Points
113
Roddick’s serve troubled novak, strangely. But those losses came mainly when novak’s game was in disarray. Remember all that nonsense when djokovic was retiring from matches, including one against roddick at AO? Same period when his serve went away.. nadal and fed also feasted on novak during this period.. think it was 09 and first half of 2010... one of novak’s bad stretches.

No, they came before his magic transformation and I'd hazard a guess if it wasn't for his love of eggs and amazing new "diet" Roddick would have beaten him plenty more. He went from having absolutely shocking cardio pre 2010 and multiple retirements mid match (go re-watch Roddick's hilarious video saying he has Sars, Asian bird flu etc) to suddenly never getting tired in the space of about 2 to 3 months. Amazing stuff and no one in the media has the balls to call him out on it.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
No, they came before his magic transformation and I'd hazard a guess if it wasn't for his love of eggs and amazing new "diet" Roddick would have beaten him plenty more. He went from having absolutely shocking cardio pre 2010 and multiple retirements mid match (go re-watch Roddick's hilarious video saying he has Sars, Asian bird flu etc) to suddenly never getting tired in the space of about 2 to 3 months. Amazing stuff and no one in the media has the balls to call him out on it.

Oh boy here we go with this shit again. Newsflash, if Djokovic was doping (and I tend to believe they all do, as you know), he started doing it way before his 2011 rise anyway. PEDs are not a magic wand that transform you from zero cardio to a machine.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Let this thread forever live in infamy as the thread in which a poster claimed there is zero evidence Federer hits better approach shots than Roddick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz and Federberg

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Let this thread forever live in infamy as the thread in which a poster claimed there is zero evidence Federer hits better approach shots than Roddick.

Just to be clear, because I still can't get over this, approach shots nowadays are essentially just ground strokes. @MikeOne bringing up Samrpas is ridiculous because tennis was different in those days, and there were far more sliced approaches or all around imperfect approaches that players would get away with as their opponents simply didn't hit passing shots as well as the top players do nowadays (improvement in racket technology, players moving better, being more athletic, etc...). Sampras often came in behind iffy approaches to rush the opponent and put pressure. Tennis however, has evolved, and Sampras is completely irrelevant to this conversation (as he is to the GOAT conversation).

So as approach shots are essentially just forehands/backhands nowadays, and there is zero doubt in anyone's mind that Federer has a miles better forehand/backhand than Roddick, please explain to me how his approach shots are as bad as Roddick's notoriously awful approaches.

(Spoiler: Mike will not tackle the question head on but go on some stupid logical fallacy that he'll conclude by claiming he just owned me).
 

Vince Evert

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
3,900
Reactions
1,867
Points
113
Pretty big numbers for the UK. As well as the cricket world cup final, it was also competing with the British Grand Prix (F1).
you must be thrilled with the cricket win, included kicked our butts in the semis :bye:
 
  • Like
Reactions: britbox

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Also, this moron's (@MikeOne) evidence is 10 volleys in a Youtube video highlighting the best volleys in a career of a player who literally hit tens of thousands of them. Mike, you idiot, it's a highlight of the 10 best volleys...it's not going to show you a straightforward approach followed by an easy put-away volley. My God you're dumb.

when you get this vicious personally insulting me, i know i have you locked in, in a rage, cause i'm getting the better of you. Try and at least show respect, i'm not insulting you. You are acting like a little kid, an angry man.. is life that bad broken?

go look at more of them, out of those thousands, hundreds and hundreds were like the one he hit vs Djokovic. Federer has not hit perfectly struck approaches in most of the thousands of volleys he has hit. 101 in tennis is that winning at the net is also about putting pressure on opponents, heard of the chip and charge? many of those chips are mediocre and volleyers do not hit incredible approaches most of the time, this is a FACT, not even my opinion. For anyone who has watched tennis, they would know this.

the problem here is not that Federer hit such a garbage approach, it was when he hit it. Had he hit that approach in a regular match, 1st round, 2nd round or in a smaller tournament, no-one would even say anything. Federer most likely wins that point more than 50% of the time as it is simply not easy to pass Federer at the net unless it's a drop lob... That was far from an easy passing shot, especially in that situation. Once again, part of the strategy of coming to the net, is to put pressure, force opponent to make the shot. THIS IS BASIC FREAKING STUFF! So players, even greats, will come in behind average approaches. Ideally, the approach is perfectly struck, it seldom is!

We can continue playing this game, keep looking at youtube volleys, there is one video that shows 50 volleys, go look. Show me where Federer has been hitting super deep, super hard approaches every time, it's a lie. All this is coming from the fact that that was a huge moment in the match, against Djokovic, up match points. With 20/20 hindsight, as Djokovic made the shot, Federer should've done something else but Djokovic could've easily missed that shot, under pressure and everyone would be cheering Federer win. Djokovic made the pass, Djokovic won and now the lie is = Federer always hits perfect approaches. The evidence is NOT THERE... All we have to do is look at the thousands of volleys Federer has won, MANY MANY off avg. or even poor approaches.

.
 

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
In the end, Federer fans are disappointed and Djokovic haters (like Broken who is a nadal fanatic) are angry. It doesn't matter what statistics show or how Federer played the critical points, what matters is who won. This match, IMO, was a remarkable win for Djokovic. He faced a Federer that was playing brilliant tennis, had dusted a red-hot Rafa in semis and showed no signs of age in finals, he basically played 6 sets and looked fresh at the end. Djokovic was able to weather the storm, somehow avoid getting straight setted by a Roger playing at a high level, i can't think of anyone else who could've won that 1st set against Federer playing that well. Somehow Djoker came back from giving a set away and in the big moments, made 0 UFEs, 0 UFEs! and bested Federer. This, in many ways, is more impressive to how he destroyed Rafa in AO finals. The long list of excuses is pointless, tennis is not just about ability to strike the ball perfectly every shot, it's about handling pressure, tactics, managing ups/downs, coming up big when it matters the most. This elevates Djokovic to higher ground, he is on his way to 20 slams.