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

[atttomole]

I think you overstate how different they were. They look pretty similar to the eye. Djokovic made the pass, Murray didn't. Whether it was a great pass or poor approach, though, starts to become immaterial. Bottom line is that Roger was tight, Novak was willing to go for his shots, and it worked out for him, and in the end. I agree that it seemed that Roger was the better in many ways, in that match, but Novak played the big moments better. That's it. We can keep massaging over it, but it doesn't change the outcome. It's been a week now. Are we done?

I think we are not done yet. The reason is that mikeone continues to stoke the bickering with his anti Federer posts.

 

[MikeOne]

I think we are not done yet. The reason is that mikeone continues to stoke the bickering with his anti Federer posts.

so? got a problem?

 

[atttomole]

so? got a problem?

I have no problem. I was simply responding to Moxie.

 

[MikeOne]

I have no problem. I was simply responding to Moxie.

good.

 

[Moxie]

I think we are not done yet. The reason is that mikeone continues to stoke the bickering with his anti Federer posts.

Yes, but it's eventually our choice to feed the troll or not. Mike is not a huge troll, but he's a bit of one. He and Cali jumped in to stir controversy. Mission accomplished. I like a rumble, but this was manufactured.

 

[DarthFed]

it's hard Darth, not sure who i have owned more, you or broken. It's close. You are more fanatical, so this gets in the way of actually seeing things clearly. Broken is more of a moron, but thinks he's smart. I have taught both you a lot, knowledge you begrudgingly accept..

NO Darth, those shot were almost mirror images of each other... Murray got to it and could've made passing shot, but not easy to do under pressure. Djokovic was forced to put the ball ON THE LINE, even a GOAT cannot do that at will. Had he not perfectly placed it like that, under pressure, Federer would've most likely won that point. OH, and NO Darth, Murrays' passing ability off fh side isn't any worse than Novak's, both have their bh as strengths, their fh passers pretty equal.

Tennis 101 Darth, sit back and learn. Heard of chip and charge? heard of putting pressure, playing the point? yeah, that is exactly what Federer tried to do. He didn't go for the risky perfect approach, he deliberately hit it and closed the net to put pressure on Novak and force Novak to make the difficult pass, yes, it was difficult..not hardest shot ever, but far from easy.

Charging the net to put pressure on opponent is something kids are taught in an early age and something players do in juniors, college, futures, satellites, atp 500, masters, slams. This is why i can literally find hundreds of volleys Federer has won behind approaches where he actually gave opponents a chance, it sometimes paid off, sometimes didn't. Djokovic came up big, accept it, bow down to him. As Federer said after the match 'novak, that was crazy'

your welcome Darth..

You don't own anyone you clown. Talking about chip and charge is funny since you very rarely see it because it is too easy to be passed in the modern game. Same idea for serve and volley, not too much of that anymore for an obvious reason.

Bottom line is you can't come in on junk and expect to win the point, especially against the top guys. You keep bringing up the fact it hit the line without acknowledging that Djokovic cut it close as Federer wasn't anywhere near the ball. Djokovic could have hit it harder without much angle and he'd have still won the point easily.

As for the rest, I don't trust your set of eyes or maybe you are so biased and hell bent on "winning" an argument that you don't see the difference in approach shots. The ball vs Murray is clearly wider and has more depth. Murray had to run for it and had less margin

 

[Moxie]

I watched that over and over. The serve was in almost exactly the same spot. The difference was that the Murray return was shorter, giving Roger time to jump on it, and Murray less time to calculate for the pass, which he overshot. The Djokovic return was deeper by enough to call the risk that Roger took going in not such a good decision. Djokovic had more time on the passing shot than Murray did, and he made it. To me, it was not the right moment to come in, but I think you do have to say that Djokovic could also have overhit it, as it was an in extremis moment. But he did have more time than Murray did to measure it. All of this endless palaver over it gets to be too much. Yes, Roger was tight and made a poor decision. Yes, he was open to get passed, and he did. It may have been a "routine" passing shot by some estimation of these elites, but it was a tough moment, and Novak kept it in the lines. It was "only" one point. Roger had other opportunities that he squandered, as well.

 

[Ricardo]

I watched that over and over. The serve was in almost exactly the same spot. The difference was that the Murray return was shorter, giving Roger time to jump on it, and Murray less time to calculate for the pass, which he overshot. The Djokovic return was deeper by enough to call the risk that Roger took going in not such a good decision. Djokovic had more time on the passing shot than Murray did, and he made it. To me, it was not the right moment to come in, but I think you do have to say that Djokovic could also have overhit it, as it was an in extremis moment. But he did have more time than Murray did to measure it. All of this endless palaver over it gets to be too much. Yes, Roger was tight and made a poor decision. Yes, he was open to get passed, and he did. It may have been a "routine" passing shot by some estimation of these elites, but it was a tough moment, and Novak kept it in the lines. It was "only" one point. Roger had other opportunities that he squandered, as well.

apart from set 2 and 4 where he smashed Djoker, he was leading at some stage in all the other sets. I think I would've been just as gutted had they reversed the roles, if Djoker was the better player and choked so badly. It's one of the very few matches where the better player of every set ended up losing. I remember when Novotna lost to Graf at Wimbledon, I felt so bad for her that I still remember even after more than 20 years, and my preference is Graf any day. It's just one of the matches you felt for the better player losing, regardless who you support...….I don't need to be someone's fan to have that empathy. Of course clowns like Mikeone only cares about gloating whenever Fed loses, as it's important for him to diss Fed or his legacy...….and many here have guessed the reason behind it.

 

[Bonaca]

apart from set 2 and 4 where he smashed Djoker, he was leading at some stage in all the other sets. I think I would've been just as gutted had they reversed the roles, if Djoker was the better player and choked so badly. It's one of the very few matches where the better player of every set ended up losing. I remember when Novotna lost to Graf at Wimbledon, I felt so bad for her that I still remember even after more than 20 years, and my preference is Graf any day. It's just one of the matches you felt for the better player losing, regardless who you support...….I don't need to be someone's fan to have that empathy. Of course clowns like Mikeone only cares about gloating whenever Fed loses, as it's important for him to diss Fed or his legacy...….and many here have guessed the reason behind it.

Empathy is a very important ability in common.
And I feel for Roger. He was so close.
But he wasn’t the better player, you have to win 3 sets, not games or stats. He was damn good, but not good enough.
I feel that way for Monica always I remember the time she played fantastic tennis, and how she ends up especially. I was always against Graf because of that German attitude and arrogance. Monica could have stopped her much more, but that’s another theme.

 

[Ricardo]

Empathy is a very important ability in common.
And I feel for Roger. He was so close.
But he wasn’t the better player, you have to win 3 sets, not games or stats. He was damn good, but not good enough.
I feel that way for Monica always I remember the time she played fantastic tennis, and how she ends up especially. I was always against Graf because of that German attitude and arrogance. Monica could have stopped her much more, but that’s another theme.

The better player can end up losing, at least that's what experienced people can tell you. The forum is full of simpletons, yeah yeah yeah the player who lost is never the better player...yada yada yada. Rafter had a heat stroke against Agassi, but temperature got him, so despite being in leading position he puffed out....yes that's another example of the better player losing.

Bottom line, I don't need frickn forum simpletons to play the role of experts, and dictate what definition of a better player should be. Boris Becker said the same, and it's happened in past matches before where things like this were talked about. It's funny, a lot of people in the tennis world say something but our precious forum simpletons here refute them as if they know shit. Whether or not he was the better player is not up to you, the numbers and stats and actually watching the match would show.....which is opposite to your own individual opinion.

 

[Ricardo]

what makes you say that Fed wasn't the better player anyway? (apart from failing to close out Djoker in various stages of the match, up till match points)

 

[Bonaca]

The better player can end up losing, at least that's what experienced people can tell you. The forum is full of simpletons, yeah yeah yeah the player who lost is never the better player...yada yada yada. Rafter had a heat stroke against Agassi, but temperature got him, so despite being in leading position he puffed out....yes that's another example of the better player losing.

Bottom line, I don't need frickn forum simpletons to play the role of experts, and dictate what definition of a better player should be. Boris Becker said the same, and it's happened in past matches before where things like this were talked about. It's funny, a lot of people in the tennis world say something but our precious forum simpletons here refute them as if they know shit. Whether or not he was the better player is not up to you, the numbers and stats and actually watching the match would show.....which is opposite to your own individual opinion.

It's my individual opinion, what else should it be.
You can think what you want, I don’t care.
What the hell are you talking about. Nothing is up to me in this forum, so isn’t to you.
My opinion is: the better player is the one who wins. Roger played great, Novak played good enough to reach 3 TB and then played much better than Roger. You can analyse every stat, every fucking game if you want, listen to experts without making your own opinion.
To someone like you maybe it’s very complicated, but for others it’s simple like that. Think about it, it’s worth!
Haha, Rafters heat stroke and this match, yeah that’s really nearly the same.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's my individual opinion, what else should it be.
You can think what you want, I don’t care.
What the hell are you talking about. Nothing is up to me in this forum, so isn’t to you.
My opinion is: the better player is the one who wins. Roger played great, Novak played good enough to reach 3 TB and then played much better than Roger. You can analyse every stat, every fucking game if you want, listen to experts without making your own opinion.
To someone like you maybe it’s very complicated, but for others it’s simple like that. Think about it, it’s worth!
Haha, Rafters heat stroke and this match, yeah that’s really nearly the same.

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.

 

[Moxie]

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.

While I think that Roger was the better player in the W final this year, the example you offer isn't a good one. Surely there are better ones. It was a final in Madrid. Kei was definitely the better player until he got hurt. Should have won in straights but hurt his back. They played it out and Nadal won in 3. For sure Kei would have won that match, but for injury. I'll try to think of one that doesn't involve injury.

 

[Bonaca]

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.

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. Being the better player in a competition, in my opinion, is more than that.
When we take boxing for example, one fighter throws more punches and lands more, the other fighter punches harder and gets the KO. For you the technically fighter is the better one.
Maybe it’s about my language ability, but
I’m fine with your opinions too.
Debating doesn’t change anything.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

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?

 

[Fiero425]

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. 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?

This takes me back 40+ years watching a clay final with Manuel Orantes against John Alexander! Orantes was playing well, winning his serve easily while Alexander was struggling to hang on by the skin of his teeth! He pulled it out though in the end; 2-6.6-4,6-4! J.A. was coined the "Last Of The Mohicans" by Bud Collins! He was a much better and more successful doubles player! He just "toughed it out" against M.O. that day! It happens; someone winning a match when totally out, but takes it anyway! :whistle:

 

[Bonaca]

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?

I agree with your post.
Your last paragraph is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t because English isn’t my language. And my answer to that is no, Roger isn’t the better player that day, because of what you wrote about the big moments.

 

[Bonaca]

This takes me back 40+ years watching a clay final with Manuel Orantes against John Alexander! Orantes was playing well, winning his serve easily while Alexander was struggling to hang on by the skin of his teeth! He pulled it out though in the end; 2-6.6-4,6-4! J.A. was coined the "Last Of The Mohicans" by Bud Collins! He was a much better and more successful doubles player! He just "toughed it out" against M.O. that day! It happens; someone winning a match when totally out, but takes it anyway! :whistle:

Agree, but this one day he was better. Not meaning he was the better single player overall.

 

[Ricardo]

It's my individual opinion, what else should it be.
You can think what you want, I don’t care.
What the hell are you talking about. Nothing is up to me in this forum, so isn’t to you.
My opinion is: the better player is the one who wins. Roger played great, Novak played good enough to reach 3 TB and then played much better than Roger. You can analyse every stat, every fucking game if you want, listen to experts without making your own opinion.
To someone like you maybe it’s very complicated, but for others it’s simple like that. Think about it, it’s worth!
Haha, Rafters heat stroke and this match, yeah that’s really nearly the same.

Ok then, I am not saying you can’t be a simpleton, your choice.