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

[Ricardo]

That is too simplistic. If that were the case, we would not be debating it at all. While in some matches, who played best is questionable, in some other matches it is very clear. This is a match of the second type. Clearly, Roger played better although Novak ended up winning. There are several such matches. As another example, there was a clay match (Madrid or Barcelona) where Kei played much better than Ralph, but Ralph ended up winning.

Exactly, it’s not uncommon that the guy playing better tennis ended up losing. There had even been extreme cases where a player goes up 40-0 5-0 and loses. Roger won set 2 and 4 convincingly and had chances to close out set 1, 3 and 5 but didn’t which was the disappointment. For the simpletons, a player can be up 40-0 5-0 and let’s say he got injured or choked that bad would end up losing, and we still can’t call him the better player because technically ‘he lost’. I saw Brown having to default a match where he was a point or two away from winning (he dominated throughout) because the pain got too much, common sense says he was the better player who lost.

 

[Bonaca]

Exactly, it’s not uncommon that the guy playing better tennis ended up losing. There had even been extreme cases where a player goes up 40-0 5-0 and loses. Roger won set 2 and 4 convincingly and had chances to close out set 1, 3 and 5 but didn’t which was the disappointment. For the simpletons, a player can be up 40-0 5-0 and let’s say he got injured or choked that bad would end up losing, and we still can’t call him the better player because technically ‘he lost’. I saw Brown having to default a match where he was a point or two away from winning (he dominated throughout) because the pain got too much, common sense says he was the better player who lost.

Be fair, I exclude injuries and multiple referee mistakes in crucial moments.
What you call choking is another debatable thing, in my simple opinion.
Roger played most of the match better, but was he the better player while playing poor when it mostly matters?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Obviously, examples where a player got injured are extreme and obvious exceptions to the rule (ie Nishikori vs. Nadal in Madrid), so I wouldn't focus on that.

I'm with you though, that it is too simplistic and not that cut and dry in general. I think the margins in tennis are so small (literally dictated by inches) that being so dogmatic isn't wise. I mean, what if Fed's first serve on match point doesn't clip the top of the net? Half an inch up and he probably ends up being "the better player."

That said: "Clearly, Roger played better although Novak ended up winning."

There is more to tennis than how well you strike the ball, which tactics you employ, etc.... Playing better and being the better player aren't necessarily 100% the same although they're close. In other words, Roger played better, for the majority of the match, I don't think that's debated. But does that make him the better player on the day when Novak played the big moments/big points so much better?

There is no question that Novak played big moments/big points better in that match. I am not claiming that Novak somehow accidentally ended up winning the match.

But, the notion of better player and the player who won the match can be different and in this match they were is my contention.
This is even more so in tennis as compared to other sports, where not all points play the same role.

I agree with you that it is better to exclude matches where one or both players are injured while indulging in this discussion. However, there are quite a few matches where the better player did not win and this is one of them.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think the definition of playing best/ being the better player is the question. Hard to discuss that. Lot of subjective parts.
When you place stats in front, Roger is clearly the better player in this match.
.

Roger was ahead in every measurable category except the most important one, viz., number of sets won. But, I am not talking here about stats alone. Ignore all the stats. Just ask someone who watched the match as to who played better merely based on eye test. Most would say it was Fed.

 

[Fiero425]

There is no question that Novak played big moments/big points better in that match. I am not claiming that Novak somehow accidentally ended up winning the match.

But, the notion of better player and the player who won the match can be different and in this match they were is my contention.
This is even more so in tennis as compared to other sports, where not all points play the same role.

I agree with you that it is better to exclude matches where one or both players are injured while indulging in this discussion. However, there are quite a few matches where the better player did not win and this is one of them.

Turning it around, going back to that FO Semi in 2011, Federer played out of his mind that day to upset Nole on clay preventing another clash of TITANS! Unfortunately Roger couldn't sustain it & meekly dropped the final to Rafa in "straights!" :cuckoo:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Turning it around, going back to that FO Semi in 2011, Federer played out of his mind that day to upset Nole on clay preventing another clash of TITANS! Unfortunately Roger couldn't sustain it & meekly dropped the final to Rafa in "straights!" :cuckoo:

But, neither of those two matches, the SF and F of RG'11 are anomaly. In both of those matches, the better player and the winning player are the same person.

 

[Bonaca]

Roger was ahead in every measurable category except the most important one, viz., number of sets won. But, I am not talking here about stats alone. Ignore all the stats. Just ask someone who watched the match as to who played better merely based on eye test. Most would say it was Fed.

I would and do say the same. I agree with you about who played better.
I'm only separating who played better in nearly every measurable aspect and who was the winner or let’s say the better competitor. Maybe that’s the better name for what I meant.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I would and do say the same. I agree with you about who played better.
I'm only separating who played better in nearly every measurable aspect and who was the winner or let’s say the better competitor. Maybe that’s the better name for what I meant.

Who is the winner of the match can be known by just looking up on the final result without even watching a single point being played. To make an assessment of who played better, one needs to see the match.

You were essentially claiming that whoever is the winner played better (and no need to even see the match).

 

[Fiero425]

I would and do say the same. I agree with you about who played better.
I'm only separating who played better in nearly every measurable aspect and who was the winner or let’s say the better competitor. Maybe that’s the better name for what I meant.

Nole proved to be the better player in the clutch! Roger won a couple easy sets, but if challenged he makes errors (11) while Nole made NONE in those TB's! That's why he won and the GOAT has to be crushed for yet another "choke job!" We can say Nole won it, but with 2 MP's and serving, a simple 1st serve at 40-15 would have done it more than likely! Federer would be making more history and maybe put the "major count" out of reach at 21! Now it's up for grabs by both Nadovic! :whistle:

 

[Bonaca]

But, neither of those two matches, the SF and F of RG'11 are anomaly. In both of those matches, the better player and the winning player are the same person.

This years Wimbledon final was also no anomaly or accident. Roger would have won a

Who is the winner of the match can be known by just looking up on the final result without even watching a single point being played. To make an assessment of who played better, one needs to see the match.

You were essentially claiming that whoever is the winner played better (and no need to even see the match).

Yes , but certainly excluding injuries. The winner did more things better , they play to win not to play better. There are things not measurable that also counts.

 

[Moxie]

Obviously, examples where a player got injured are extreme and obvious exceptions to the rule (ie Nishikori vs. Nadal in Madrid), so I wouldn't focus on that.

I'm with you though, that it is too simplistic and not that cut and dry in general. I think the margins in tennis are so small (literally dictated by inches) that being so dogmatic isn't wise. I mean, what if Fed's first serve on match point doesn't clip the top of the net? Half an inch up and he probably ends up being "the better player."

That said: "Clearly, Roger played better although Novak ended up winning."

There is more to tennis than how well you strike the ball, which tactics you employ, etc.... Playing better and being the better player aren't necessarily 100% the same although they're close. In other words, Roger played better, for the majority of the match, I don't think that's debated. But does that make him the better player on the day when Novak played the big moments/big points so much better?

Well-said. All of us who watched that match felt that it was Roger's match to lose. And he did. But Djokovic played the big moments/points better. I thought of another match for @GameSetAndMath: it's been a long time since I've watched it, but Nadal d. Djokovic Madrid SF 2009 could be one. I first "watched" that match only via score lines, and then watched it later. Even knowing that Rafa won that match, I found it amazing that he did. Djokovic out-played him the majority of that match, but Rafa won the big points.

 

[DarthFed]

Basically the match just shows that not all points are created equal. Roger outplayed Novak for the vast majority of the match and yet he was never actually winning until he broke for a 8-7 lead in the 5th. I mean if you exclude TB's he had 23 more points than Novak in the match which is a ton. But Novak won the ones that counted most and/or Roger lost them. Heck even that first BP in set 1 that he blew kind of ended up being the sign of things to come.

 

[monfed]

Basically the match just shows that not all points are created equal. Roger outplayed Novak for the vast majority of the match and yet he was never actually winning until he broke for a 8-7 lead in the 5th. I mean if you exclude TB's he had 23 more points than Novak in the match which is a ton. But Novak won the ones that counted most and/or Roger lost them. Heck even that first BP in set 1 that he blew kind of ended up being the sign of things to come.

He blew almost every big point to go ahead in the match. Basically he was content to just stay with faker rather than actually beat him. I've noticed this since Wim 2014 against faker but Sunday was the worst of the lot. Just wants to keep the match competitive but doesn't have any real winning intent?

To me it's absolutely shocking how a 20 slam champion can be this cowardly on big points? Even after winning so much AND overcoming his nemesis in the SF, how can you have such little self belief against a player who isn't even as problematic matchup wise than Nadal? Just shocking. I can't believe it.

I mean if Fed had lost in 4 sets like Wim 15, it would give him a better look than the way he lost on Sunday. I mean only a coward like Fed could make a tournament that should've had a OVERALL positive outcome on his stature after overcoming his nemesis in the SF turned it into a total nightmare. I just cannot believe it how you can screw up this bad.

 

[monfed]

I think what will end up happening to Fed is what happened to Zidane though Zidane's exit was more acrimonious. Two of the most beautiful players to grace their respective sports ending their careers in tragedy.

 

[Front242]

I think what will end up happening to Fed is what happened to Zidane though Zidane's exit was more acrimonious. Two of the most beautiful players to grace their respective sports ending their careers in tragedy.

Maybe Federer can take a leaf out of Zidane's book and headbutt Djokovic and Nadal. See you media monkeys, it was all an act. BOP !