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

[DarthFed]

Can you imagine if for example Sampras had 7-8 Wimbledon titles but was 0-3 in finals against Agassi there? Would he still be seen as the Wimbledon/grass Goat? I think many people would have their doubts... This looks bad for Federer... Sampras was kind of unbeatable there, nobody came close to him at Wimbledon... and now Djokovic is making his move... Where does Federer and his fans go from there? Wimbledon was supposed to be Federer's playground, but it's not...

It's hardly his playground surface wise. It's the Madrid of grass which is a big part of Roger's poor results there the past 12 years

 

[MikeOne]

It's hardly his playground surface wise. It's the Madrid of grass which is a big part of Roger's poor results there the past 12 years

But darth, grass supposedly slowed down in 2002, when surface changed. Remember all that fuss around hewitt and nalbandian making wimbledon finals that year? The year after goran and rafter made finals? That was the year that grass turned into clay, supposedly.

Well, roger did pretty good between 2004-2007 and then 09 and then after that. Did grass slow even more? Really?

 

[DarthFed]

But darth, grass supposedly slowed down in 2002, when surface changed. Remember all that fuss around hewitt and nalbandian making wimbledon finals that year? The year after goran and rafter made finals? That was the year that grass turned into clay, supposedly.

Well, roger did pretty good between 2004-2007 and then 09 and then after that. Did grass slow even more? Really?

They only changed the surface in 2002 but it's pretty well known that they've made the balls heavier over time which has made for slower and slower conditions. The bounce was low this year, that's for sure. That's good for Roger but he of course prefers a fast surface. Novak is at his absolute best on medium paced court with a low/medium bounce. First match I saw I knew right away this was Novak's tournament to lose.

 

[Moxie]

They only changed the surface in 2002 but it's pretty well known that they've made the balls heavier over time which has made for slower and slower conditions. The bounce was low this year, that's for sure. That's good for Roger but he of course prefers a fast surface. Novak is at his absolute best on medium paced court with a low/medium bounce. First match I saw I knew right away this was Novak's tournament to lose.

I don't believe there is any proof that they've made the balls heavier over time. The Slazenger has been really a feature of Wimbledon. And I think they changed the grass in 2001.

 

[roberto]

It seems there is too much over analysis of this in my humble opinion. It was a huge moment and the Swiss star had clearly outplayed his opponent and had two championship points on his own service. Nine times out of 10 he’s going to win. Novak had a very good return on the first one and, in light of the nerves, Fed could not get out-of-the-way in time and hit it back in the court. That is all on Novak. It was a clutch shot. Think of how many service returns by Novak before and after that one serve sailed long during the match! It did not happen at that moment, though. Then comes the next point, there was a minimal amount of rallying and then Federer, as he so often has in the past, tried to be and was in fact the aggressive player by forcing either a winner from Novak to stay in the match or victory. Was it the best approach shot? No, but he was feeling the pressure too. He was so close he could taste it and, again all credit to the Serbian, Nole actually pulled off what some may call a routine passing shot, if there is such a thing. I do not believe it was a routine passing shot when you’re championship point down in the fifth set of a classic final at—of all places—SW19. , He did it, however, and then he fought tooth and nail with Roger for the remainder of the match. They both had opportunities and they both scrapped and saved and pushed the other. Roger would never see another championship point. He failed in the tiebreakers and part of that is the style of play, but he has won many clutch tiebreakers over his career, so he died with his style of play this time. He got nervous because he had lost two tiebreakers earlier and now he was in a final one. I think it would be unrealistic for him to not also recall that he had lost two big matches against the very same player after he had match points. Did it get to him? I have to believe it did. Yet, Novák still had to play and he still had to believe and he still had to do what he did. One mistake and Roger would’ve one. Was Roger the better player during the day? I think it is clear he was. Can he still win these types of majors? Obviously he can.

I think everyone is being too critical. It was heartbreaking if you are Roger fan and exhilarating if you’re a fan of Nole. Roger can handle pressure as he mentally has had some issues he had with the Spaniard and has proved he can get past that again and again. It may take some time, but he is running out of time to do it against the Serbian. All in all, it was thrilling and we should all be thankful.

What a perfect summation. I watched the entire match live, and have seen the fifth set a couple of times since, and agree word for word with your summation/analysis. And a welcome break from the bickering lol.

 

[MikeOne]

For the fun it, i re-watched first set and decided to score the stats, always curious to see if my definition of a winner, UFE, FE etc... was the same as what the statisticians keep track off. I came close but a few observations.

Somehow i scored Novak with 45 pts and Federer with 42 pts when it was actually 46/41 officially. Aside from this, i was close on winners/UFEs but not exact.

Winners - includes service winners (no aces), volley put aways, overheads, shots that opponent can't reach or barely gets racquet on it
UFEs - player has a fairly easy shot, misses
FE - Player is under pressure, out of position, 'forced' to hit a difficult shot. Also scored difficult serves to return as forced errors, serves that weren't quite unreturnable but very difficult to get back.

I scored it as follows:
Winners/UFEs - Fed 21/16, Novak 10/9
Forced errors - Fed 11, Novak 5
Aces - Fed 5, Novak 4
Service winners - Fed 4, Novak 3
double faults - Fed 2, Novak 1

When combining total winning shots (winners + aces) vs total errors (UFEs + FEs) - Fed 26/28, Novak 17/16

All of sudden stats look a bit different. Federer is definitely the one dictating but making more errors than winners. I think that the the fact that the 'forced' error isn't recorded as a stat, is a shame, it's an underrated stat.

So when comparing 26/28 vs 17/16 winning shots/total errors, it looks quite different than 21/16 vs 10/9 winners/UFEs.

Lastly, the forced error is, in part, a result of quality shots from the opponent. All those forced errors i recorded (Fed 11, Novak 5) were a result of a player making an error because the opponent was dictating play, hitting quality shots which 'forced' errors. The person 'forcing' the error is hitting shots that don't quite get scored as winners but close to being winners, shame they don't get credit for those shots.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think that the the fact that the 'forced' error isn't recorded as a stat, is a shame, it's an underrated stat.

While not directly stated in stats, the FE is easy to figure out.

opponent's FE = total points won by you - your winners - opponent's UFE

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have not read this entire thread carefully yet, due to its fast growth and so this might have been discussed before.

Anyway, I cannot help wondering as to what would have been the result of this match if it was played under old rules (viz., no TB in 5th set). Until the end of 4th set, Novak broke Fed once (and had two BPs). On the other hand Fed broke Novak whopping five times (but had 8 BPs). It was very clear that Fed was serving solidly (as Novak did not even get a break chance until very late in the 4th set). Given that this is the case, I feel the result would probably have been different in the 5th set if there were no TBs.

I am not saying Wimbledon changed the rule as part of a conspiracy to deny Fed another trophy; but, I do believe Fed would have fared better under the old rules.

 

[Vince Evert]

I have not read this entire thread carefully yet, due to its fast growth and so this might have been discussed before.

Anyway, I cannot help wondering as to what would have been the result of this match if it was played under old rules (viz., no TB in 5th set). Until the end of 4th set, Novak broke Fed once (and had two BPs). On the other hand Fed broke Novak whopping five times (but had 8 BPs). It was very clear that Fed was serving solidly (as Novak did not even get a break chance until very late in the 4th set). Given that this is the case, I feel the result would probably have been different in the 5th set if there were no TBs.

I am not saying Wimbledon changed the rule as part of a conspiracy to deny Fed another trophy; but, I do believe Fed would have fared better under the old rules.

if it was still played as advantage set then i don't think it would made any difference. Novak would have broken serve and won (sorry to say). That's based on him being the game ahead in the fifth. I'm hoping that they'll bring back advantage final set (3rd set for Ladies final) next year championship. Tennis Grand Slams have become very fragmented with differing rules.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I have not read this entire thread carefully yet, due to its fast growth and so this might have been discussed before.

Anyway, I cannot help wondering as to what would have been the result of this match if it was played under old rules (viz., no TB in 5th set). Until the end of 4th set, Novak broke Fed once (and had two BPs). On the other hand Fed broke Novak whopping five times (but had 8 BPs). It was very clear that Fed was serving solidly (as Novak did not even get a break chance until very late in the 4th set). Given that this is the case, I feel the result would probably have been different in the 5th set if there were no TBs.

I am not saying Wimbledon changed the rule as part of a conspiracy to deny Fed another trophy; but, I do believe Fed would have fared better under the old rules.

After blowing the match-points, I honestly think Roger would have faltered first even without a tie-break. Nerves and fatigue would have gotten the better of him and Novak typically just wins these types of matches.

 

[MikeOne]

While not directly stated in stats, the FE is easy to figure out.

opponent's FE = total points won by you - your winners - opponent's UFE

Yes, of course but because it’s never really talked about, the winner/ufe stat may be deceiving.

Winner/ufe of 21/16 vs 10/9 looks quite different than total winning shots/total errors of 26/28 vs 17/16. The forced error is an important shot, by not mentioning it, the person ‘forcing’ the errors is getting no credit.

 

[Front242]

Give a break please. You are like a broken record, going on and on.
Let me tell you something, if Novak is suspicious from this point of view, so is Roger. Or did he found somehow a fountain of eternal youth, and that makes him moving out there fresh as daisy at this age.

Moving fresh as a daisy? Lol, not by a long shot. He's much slower for years running to his forehand side, hence the number of errors cos the timing is off as he's late getting to balls. It's no Secret Roger has changed his game a lot as he's aged and is being far more aggressive and trying to win points quickly 'cos he knows he has no choice if he wants to compete with the top dogs.

You make it sound like he's running around like Ferrer out there. Back to back tournaments with little break and Roger does badly for a long time now for exactly the opposite reasons you claim, funnily enough. He's gets tired like a normal human being and you know he's toast once he's played a few long matches. There are plenty of points where Roger doesn't even attempt to run the ball down and he's right.

 

[Front242]

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.

Actually they are a magic wand turning you from zero cardio to a machine. Have you read how many "sick" athletes out there supposedly have asthma? That's 'cos it's simple to get a TUE for an inhaler and once you have one you can put Xenon or Argon gas inside it. A couple of puffs give a massive red blood cell boost. Those gases are banned but there is currently no test for them. Can you imagine Lance Armstrong or any cyclist for that matter without his drugs? Sharapova can barely win a match since she was banned and they rid her of her beloved Meldonium. Basically her whole career is now a farce.

Venus William's has been seen losing sets 6-0 and going off court with her inhaler in her hand. She comes back and wins the next sets 6-1 6-0.

All things being equal, if multiple top players have similar skill sets in terms of their shot making ability, serve etc and the only thing separating them is fitness, then outlasting your opponent is a massive advantage. There's a massive incentive to cheat and it's obvious when people actually put 2 and 2 together without bias. You can't keep running like a gazelle in sweltering conditions for hours day after day and not expect anyone to notice. People who don't are not only naive but idiots and sad to say but in the sports community there are plenty of these people.

Re Djokovic, he had also been using the hyperbaric chambers/egg whatever you want to call them for increased red blood count and his cardio change was literally, as I said, massively visible in a matter of months from late 2010 to AO 2011.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually they are a magic wand turning you from zero cardio to a machine.

No that's not how they work. This is ignorant.

 

[mrzz]

After blowing the match-points, I honestly think Roger would have faltered first even without a tie-break. Nerves and fatigue would have gotten the better of him and Novak typically just wins these types of matches.

Well, Wawrinka has something to say about that. Anyway, that is what I thought at the point (when Djokovic brake back), but what happened after that was that only Federer got into Djokovic's service's games, including having two break points, one of them in a cross court slice backhand that sailed past Djokovic inches wide (I was already celebrating that fucking ball). Not to say that I am sure Federer would win, but I remember thinking at the time he had a better shot in the old rules than in the TB (obviously, immediate memory of the previous TB's were heavily influencing my judgment).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, Wawrinka has something to say about that.

Interestingly, they played 4 five setters and Novak won 3 of them. The RG and US Open final wins by Stan came in 4 sets.

On a side note, this is one of the most interesting head to heads in tennis. Novak leads 19-5. Two of Wawrinka's wins came in 2006, and the other three came in the 3 majors that Stan won. So Novak completely owns him but somehow doesn't. Really strange.

 

[mrzz]

Interestingly, they played 4 five setters and Novak won 3 of them. The RG and US Open final wins by Stan came in 4 sets.

On a side note, this is one of the most interesting head to heads in tennis. Novak leads 19-5. Two of Wawrinka's wins came in 2006, and the other three came in the 3 majors that Stan won. So Novak completely owns him but somehow doesn't. Really strange.

I was thinking specifically of those matches that went beyond 6-6 in the fifth (since you wrote "those kind of matches", and that was the case in the W final). In that case they are tied 1-1. But memory is a shitty thing, for some reason I thought it was 2-1 Wawrinka.

 

[Front242]

No that's not how they work. This is ignorant.

Ever sit in a hyperbaric chamber for a few days, puff a few inhalers of Xenon or Argon gas while also maybe being on EPO or some other stuff like Meldonium and then try playing a tennis match? Nah. Didn't think so. There are very fast acting things out there such as the aforementioned gases.

 

[Bonaca]

For the fun it, i re-watched first set and decided to score the stats, always curious to see if my definition of a winner, UFE, FE etc... was the same as what the statisticians keep track off. I came close but a few observations.

Somehow i scored Novak with 45 pts and Federer with 42 pts when it was actually 46/41 officially. Aside from this, i was close on winners/UFEs but not exact.

Winners - includes service winners (no aces), volley put aways, overheads, shots that opponent can't reach or barely gets racquet on it
UFEs - player has a fairly easy shot, misses
FE - Player is under pressure, out of position, 'forced' to hit a difficult shot. Also scored difficult serves to return as forced errors, serves that weren't quite unreturnable but very difficult to get back.

I scored it as follows:
Winners/UFEs - Fed 21/16, Novak 10/9
Forced errors - Fed 11, Novak 5
Aces - Fed 5, Novak 4
Service winners - Fed 4, Novak 3
double faults - Fed 2, Novak 1

When combining total winning shots (winners + aces) vs total errors (UFEs + FEs) - Fed 26/28, Novak 17/16

All of sudden stats look a bit different. Federer is definitely the one dictating but making more errors than winners. I think that the the fact that the 'forced' error isn't recorded as a stat, is a shame, it's an underrated stat.

So when comparing 26/28 vs 17/16 winning shots/total errors, it looks quite different than 21/16 vs 10/9 winners/UFEs.

Lastly, the forced error is, in part, a result of quality shots from the opponent. All those forced errors i recorded (Fed 11, Novak 5) were a result of a player making an error because the opponent was dictating play, hitting quality shots which 'forced' errors. The person 'forcing' the error is hitting shots that don't quite get scored as winners but close to being winners, shame they don't get credit for those shots.

Very interesting post. Thanks for that.

 

[DarthFed]

Actually they are a magic wand turning you from zero cardio to a machine. Have you read how many "sick" athletes out there supposedly have asthma? That's 'cos it's simple to get a TUE for an inhaler and once you have one you can put Xenon or Argon gas inside it. A couple of puffs give a massive red blood cell boost. Those gases are banned but there is currently no test for them. Can you imagine Lance Armstrong or any cyclist for that matter without his drugs? Sharapova can barely win a match since she was banned and they rid her of her beloved Meldonium. Basically her whole career is now a farce.

Venus William's has been seen losing sets 6-0 and going off court with her inhaler in her hand. She comes back and wins the next sets 6-1 6-0.

All things being equal, if multiple top players have similar skill sets in terms of their shot making ability, serve etc and the only thing separating them is fitness, then outlasting your opponent is a massive advantage. There's a massive incentive to cheat and it's obvious when people actually put 2 and 2 together without bias. You can't keep running like a gazelle in sweltering conditions for hours day after day and not expect anyone to notice. People who don't are not only naive but idiots and sad to say but in the sports community there are plenty of these people.

Re Djokovic, he had also been using the hyperbaric chambers/egg whatever you want to call them for increased red blood count and his cardio change was literally, as I said, massively visible in a matter of months from late 2010 to AO 2011.

Sugarpova has been trash since her return. This shows just how much one can benefit from the sauce. Saw A LOT of it in baseball too back in the big steroid age. Many HOF caliber players were proven to be nothing when they were "natural". And no the reasonable thought process is not "everyone does it". I'm kind of shocked someone as intelligent as Shoelace gives into that kind of lazy thinking. Truly if #1-99 ranked players in tennis are on sauce that makes #100 the best player in the world. I think it is widespread, in part thanks to a corrupt ATP, but not everyone does it.