PDA

View Full Version : Was Jokers return at the USO a lucky shot?


VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 06:13 AM
• Down 5-3, 40-15 in the fifth set of his US Open against Federer, Djokovic staved off match point by blasting a spectacular forehand winner just inside the sideline off Federer’s first serve. Djokovic won 17 of the last 21 points to prevail. BTW: John McEnroe called it “one of the best returns ever struck.” Federer said it was “a lucky shot.”

Bobby Jr
03-07-2012, 06:16 AM
Well, he went for broke and made a shot which you'd expect him to miss at least half the time.

Luck plays a part whenever you go for broke.

phnx90
03-07-2012, 06:18 AM
Well, he went for broke and made a shot which you'd expect him to miss at least half the time.

Luck plays a part whenever you go for broke.

This, pretty much.

Didn't he make a similar shot at the end of an earlier set only to net it and lose the set?

monfed
03-07-2012, 06:42 AM
• Down 5-3, 40-15 in the fifth set of his US Open against Federer, Djokovic staved off match point by blasting a spectacular forehand winner just inside the sideline off Federer’s first serve. Djokovic won 17 of the last 21 points to prevail. BTW: John McEnroe called it “one of the best returns ever struck.” Federer said it was “a lucky shot.”

********* is that you? :lol:

Ontopic - He swung for the fences and it went in, it was partially lucky, partially brave.

celoft
03-07-2012, 06:50 AM
Yes it was lucky.

SLD76
03-07-2012, 06:51 AM
It was lucky in that he made contact with the ball, it went over the net, and landed in the fair part of the court.

Frankly, its a miracle of physics.

Can we close this thread now?

merlinpinpin
03-07-2012, 06:56 AM
Well, he went for broke and made a shot which you'd expect him to miss at least half the time.

Luck plays a part whenever you go for broke.

This. If you say "it wasn't lucky", it means you consider that he should be making this kind of return every time, which means, incidentally, that he's goofing around when he has to play more than one shot on a return point if delivering a return winner is 100% sure when he feels like doing it.

Funny thing is that, in 2010, he also went for broke on the first match point and it also landed just in. Sometimes luck really does play a part (just ask Lendl and Becker about that MP in the 1988 Masters, or the incredible MP Becker "saved" against Rostagno on his (only) victorious run to the US Open title in 1989). When things are going your way, it's mighty hard for the guy on the other side of the net to derail your train.

Rozroz
03-07-2012, 07:03 AM
judge for yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGz8AeqAPY

joeri888
03-07-2012, 07:03 AM
I don't wanna talk about it.:cry:

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 07:22 AM
I'm not sure if it was lucky or not but I don't think Fed should have said that even if it's true.

TTMR
03-07-2012, 07:50 AM
The two sets Federer won were extremely close and could have gone either way. The two sets Djokovic won, while hardly blowouts, were decisive. Had Djokovic been really lucky, he would have won in straights. Djokovic was the better overall player in the match, and thus deserved to win, regardless of whether or not that one return was 'lucky'. Likewise in 2010, Djokovic destroyed Federer in two sets, while Federer won two tight ones.

Total points won:

2010 - Djokovic 163, Federer 148
2011 - Djokovic 161, Federer 143

If anything, Federer was lucky to be that close to victory in both matches. Djokovic outperformed his result, while Federer underperformed his.

GasquetGOAT
03-07-2012, 07:52 AM
I'm not sure if it was lucky or not but I don't think Fed should have said that even if it's true.

If anyone has earned the right to tell it like it is, its Federer.

What would Nadal have said?

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 08:03 AM
If anyone has earned the right to tell it like it is, its Federer.

What would Nadal have said?

His usual kiss Asz sort of stuff " he is the greatest player in the world I was lucky to even get a set off of him "

LuckyR
03-07-2012, 08:07 AM
Luck? Is it luck when something that happens 5% of the time, actually happens (5% of the time)?

Tony48
03-07-2012, 08:25 AM
That was one of SEVERAL return winners Djoker hit in that match. Were those lucky, too? Or just the one when the match was on the line?

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 08:27 AM
Luck? Is it luck when something that happens 5% of the time, actually happens (5% of the time)?

WOW!! That was great!

And I love your tag.....perfect for the thread....lol

MichaelNadal
03-07-2012, 08:29 AM
It was pretty lucky, he knew if it was successful it would be a really strong shot, or winner, but come on now, he had nothing to lose at that point and was ready to cash his chips in. Didn't he even say he closed his eyes and hoped for the best? It was lucky.

ZeroSkid
03-07-2012, 08:38 AM
He did the same thing at us open 2010, not luck, he went for it and was rewarded

merlinpinpin
03-07-2012, 08:43 AM
It was pretty lucky, he knew if it was successful it would be a really strong shot, or winner, but come on now, he had nothing to lose at that point and was ready to cash his chips in. Didn't he even say he closed his eyes and hoped for the best? It was lucky.

That's what he said in 2010, too, that he just closed his eyes and hoped it stayed in. Everything in his attitude shouts desperate shot when you watch the vid, though. He was clearly vexed and thought he had nothing to lose--turned out he was right. ;)

Tammo
03-07-2012, 08:47 AM
Us tennis fans were never meant to see a Nadal vs Federer US Open final. I just was never meant, so deal with it. It was pre determined.

dudeski
03-07-2012, 08:50 AM
It was a very lucky shot for Federer. If Novak didn't make that shot then Nadal would become a two time USO champion and Federer would have completed the ******** slam. All this would be just terrible. Instead, life is good and we can look forward to the completion of Rafail slam at the FO.

Magnetite
03-07-2012, 08:56 AM
It was definitely lucky. He was mentally ready to go to the locker room as the loser, and pretty much slapped his forehand as hard as he could on match point for Federer. When it landed in, Djoker couldn't even believe it.

The thing is, nobody has ever won that many matches in a row, and dominated the tour, without a bit of luck on their side at key moments.

He fought off a great body serve on match point #2, and may have had a little more luck on his side when Federer's forehand hit the tape and landed out.

Either way, he deserved the win, after fighting back from 2 - 0 down.

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 09:28 AM
I don't know if it was lucky or not but I was at the final of that USO and I can tell you I have never seen anyone return serves like that in my life.

I would even go so far as to say that the Joker has the greatest return of Serve of all time .....better than Agassi or Connors.

TonLars
03-07-2012, 09:43 AM
Its not a "lucky" shot. Thats such a stupid comment to make, honestly. Was it a tough shot? Yes, and very risky considering the score. But definitely not something he couldnt make many, many times.

Marius_Hancu
03-07-2012, 09:47 AM
luck, skill, desperation and determination

BeHappy
03-07-2012, 09:48 AM
He did it on purpose so I don't think anyone can say it was a fluke. And when he was more aggressive he hit those kind of shots all the time. Sour grapes from Federer in my opinion.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-07-2012, 09:50 AM
It was a very lucky shot for Federer. If Novak didn't make that shot then Nadal would become a two time USO champion and Federer would have completed the ******** slam. All this would be just terrible. Instead, life is good and we can look forward to the completion of Rafail slam at the FO.

Yeah I agree with this. Djoker kinda saved Fed in this regard.

ALL IN
03-07-2012, 09:51 AM
• Down 5-3, 40-15 in the fifth set of his US Open against Federer, Djokovic staved off match point by blasting a spectacular forehand winner just inside the sideline off Federer’s first serve. Djokovic won 17 of the last 21 points to prevail. BTW: John McEnroe called it “one of the best returns ever struck.” Federer said it was “a lucky shot.”

First off, Fed didn't hit his spot on the serve. Secondly, Djokovic was reading and returning that wide serve on the deuce court very well all match. He won a few free points off much better serves on that side. So no, it wasn't luck.

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 09:58 AM
First off, Fed didn't hit his spot on the serve. Secondly, Djokovic was reading and returning that wide serve on the deuce court very well all match. He won a few free points off much better serves on that side. So no, it wasn't luck.

Juat to be clear .....I didn't write that......That's a quote from inside tennis magazine.

gavna
03-07-2012, 10:06 AM
Of course it wasnt lucky.....those kind of shots are the ones that great players make when they have to. Its the reason these guys work out 6 plus hours per day - no different than a last second touchdown bomb or a homerun with two out in the bottom of the 9th to win a playoff or series.

Laurie
03-07-2012, 10:40 AM
In that moment, shaking his head (in irony or what he thought was certain defeat), Djokovic decided to do something that most modern tennis players are not trained to do, he took a gamble and it paid off. When you take a big gamble and it pays off, it makes you stronger and increases your confidence. But the modern game is more about conservatism and very calculated risks.

So I say bravo to Djokovic for pulling that off in such a crucial moment, which got the crowd and worldwide tv audience incredibly excited. I'm not sure if he is the sort of personality to want to play gambling tennis too often in future.

Hood_Man
03-07-2012, 10:54 AM
It was a bit lucky, but it was also very brave. It's the one reason why I didn't think Nadal had completely turned their AO final around this year when he was up a break in the 5th, I was expecting a response like this.

Djokovic is like a violent caged animal these days, back him into a corner and he'll bite. If Federer or Nadal (or indeed most players actually) get broken and face an opponent now serving for the match they don't stand there and take defeat with a smile on their face like Novak did.

It's what makes Djokovic so dangerous IMHO.

Love all
03-07-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes it was lucky, bcoz he can not hit one out of 4 with certanity.
Nadal's lob was similar to this one in last game when he was break point down.

wimble10
03-07-2012, 12:26 PM
Luck? I don't know. Too bad Federer didn't go down the middle. Also, Federer's serve looked pretty good but Djokovic was on top of it and hit the shot of his life. The serve was deep and in the corner so Djokovic had to stretch but it opened an angle and Djoker didn't miss.

Mustard
03-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Obviously there was some luck involved, because the ball could have easily sailed out, but Djokovic seemed to just go for it knowing that he had nothing to lose being match points down. It took guts to come back from there to win the match.

DeShaun
03-07-2012, 12:39 PM
I think not. He has always embraced healthily playing big points with his ability for stroking big in a way that is just shy of recklessly going for broke. After "the return," I went back and watched old footage of his first run to the OZ title. It was funny how young and infant-like he looked only a few years ago, but one thing I saw in him that really stood out from that old footage was that, even back then Novak was "going for it" and seemed the happiest when playing the big points, as though he believed that in such moments, this is where and how legends are made. Part of why Novak is a champion is because his guts are massive, he's got real balls.

Towser83
03-07-2012, 12:46 PM
The two sets Federer won were extremely close and could have gone either way. The two sets Djokovic won, while hardly blowouts, were decisive. Had Djokovic been really lucky, he would have won in straights. Djokovic was the better overall player in the match, and thus deserved to win, regardless of whether or not that one return was 'lucky'. Likewise in 2010, Djokovic destroyed Federer in two sets, while Federer won two tight ones.

Total points won:

2010 - Djokovic 163, Federer 148
2011 - Djokovic 161, Federer 143

If anything, Federer was lucky to be that close to victory in both matches. Djokovic outperformed his result, while Federer underperformed
his.

Not really true with the 2011 match, how are you lucky to be in that posistion when you dominate your opponent in the first 2 sets? Even in 2010 Federer fell apart in the sets he lost. In 2011 the best level of play was from Federer in the first two sets.

But I wouldn't call either player lucky. Djokovic had a bit of luck but he went for the shot, it was lowpercentage so you are trusting a bit to luck but he meant to go after it.

SLD76
03-07-2012, 01:22 PM
It was a very lucky shot for Federer. If Novak didn't make that shot then Nadal would become a two time USO champion and Federer would have completed the ******** slam. All this would be just terrible. Instead, life is good and we can look forward to the completion of Rafail slam at the FO.


Sigh..honestly?

That match...I was hoping Fed would lose. Couldnt stand to see Rafa beat him at the USO now that he is not at his prime to defend that surface. Especially if the courts had been slowed.

If Fed hadnt beat Djoker at the FO and Djoker was still undefeated going into the USO, then yeah it would have been worth the the loss to Nadal to do it.

But as it was, Fed already had the distinction of being the first one to beat Djoke that year.

I was sad he lost,..but also sort of relieved. I knew djoker would beat rafa in the final.

Now...if it was 2007 again....different story.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-07-2012, 01:28 PM
Sigh..honestly?

That match...I was hoping Fed would lose. Couldnt stand to see Rafa beat him at the USO not that he is not at his prime to defend that surface. Especially if the courts had been slowed.

If Fed hadnt beat Djoker at the FO and Djoker was still undefeated going into the USO, then yeah it would have been worth the the loss to Nadal to do it.

But as it was, Fed already had the distinction of being the first one to beat Djoke that year.

I was sad he lost,..but also sort of relieved. I knew djoker would beat rafa in the final.

Now...if it was 2007 again....different story.

Excellent post. QFT.

dudeski
03-07-2012, 01:47 PM
Sigh..honestly?

That match...I was hoping Fed would lose. Couldnt stand to see Rafa beat him at the USO now that he is not at his prime to defend that surface. Especially if the courts had been slowed.

If Fed hadnt beat Djoker at the FO and Djoker was still undefeated going into the USO, then yeah it would have been worth the the loss to Nadal to do it.

But as it was, Fed already had the distinction of being the first one to beat Djoke that year.

I was sad he lost,..but also sort of relieved. I knew djoker would beat rafa in the final.

Now...if it was 2007 again....different story.

After seeing the 2nd set at 2012 AO semi I don't want to see Federer play Nadal ever again. Not even indoors because eventually Fed will decline enough that Nadal will beat him even there. No more Fedal matches ever again please.

SLD76
03-07-2012, 01:51 PM
After seeing the 2nd set at 2012 AO semi I don't want to see Federer play Nadal ever again. Not even indoors because eventually Fed will decline enough that Nadal will beat him even there. No more Fedal matches ever again please.

Judging by last year and this year's WTF, that may take a while longer yet.

Fugazi
03-07-2012, 01:52 PM
luck, skill, desperation and determination
That pretty much sums it up.

wimble10
03-07-2012, 02:00 PM
sure. it was part lucky. he probably misses it a quarter of the time.

jackson vile
03-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Well, he went for broke and made a shot which you'd expect him to miss at least half the time.

Luck plays a part whenever you go for broke.

No such thing as luck J/K

FlamEnemY
03-07-2012, 02:57 PM
Nope.

Granted, it was a low-percentage shot, but it's not like he's a bad returner and you can't expect something like this from him.

These are the points and matches that tell you, yeah, this is a great player you are watching.

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 02:58 PM
No such thing as luck J/K

What do you call Federers lack of competition for all those years?....lol. Just kidding.

TTMR
03-07-2012, 03:26 PM
Not really true with the 2011 match, how are you lucky to be in that posistion when you dominate your opponent in the first 2 sets? Even in 2010 Federer fell apart in the sets he lost. In 2011 the best level of play was from Federer in the first two sets.

But I wouldn't call either player lucky. Djokovic had a bit of luck but he went for the shot, it was lowpercentage so you are trusting a bit to luck but he meant to go after it.

What domination? Winning a tiebreaker at 9-7 and then winning the second set 6-4? That's not domination. I don't know the point totals for each set, but for the match it was 161-143 in favour of Djokovic. It would not have been that far apart if Federer in any way "dominated" the first two sets. I watched the match from beginning to end. The two were toe to toe for the first two sets, with high levels of play from both. Then Federer went awry the next two sets, then picked it up in the fifth. Djokovic was consistently strong throughout, meaning he was the better player, which is precisely what the point totals indicate. It was Federer who underperformed his score, meaning he was "lucky" to be in a winning position at all.

kragster
03-07-2012, 03:33 PM
Luck would be if the ball flew into the sky hit a bird and fell back onto the court.

Going for a higher risk higher impact strategy is not luck. Players do this all the time. For example going for a second serve ace. Or taking a ball before it bounces to take time away from the opponent.

Unless a player plays a ludicrous shot, I would never call it luck unless there are external elements involved (such as a lucky net cord, or umpire error etc).

Somehow people have this mentality that if a player was ahead in the game, then he deserved to win. No. Every single point counts.

kragster
03-07-2012, 03:38 PM
What domination? Winning a tiebreaker at 9-7 and then winning the second set 6-4? That's not domination. I don't know the point totals for each set, but for the match it was 161-143 in favour of Djokovic. It would not have been that far apart if Federer in any way "dominated" the first two sets. I watched the match from beginning to end. The two were toe to toe for the first two sets, with high levels of play from both. Then Federer went awry the next two sets, then picked it up in the fifth. Djokovic was consistently strong throughout, meaning he was the better player, which is precisely what the point totals indicate. It was Federer who underperformed his score, meaning he was "lucky" to be in a winning position at all.

I don't think Djoker played as a high a level during the first two sets and that contributed to it looking like Fed dominated. Just like how Fed didn't play as high a level during the next two sets and it looked like Djoker dominated.

TTMR
03-07-2012, 03:50 PM
I don't think Djoker played as a high a level during the first two sets and that contributed to it looking like Fed dominated. Just like how Fed didn't play as high a level during the next two sets and it looked like Djoker dominated.

Explain the 18 point differential then. By your logic, Djokovic and Federer should have been within a few points of each other. In no way did Federer "dominate" anything in the first two sets. Both players were playing well, with Federer having a very slight edge. The next two sets were where Djokovic built up his lead in points, and thus he was more "dominant" over Federer in those two sets than Federer was over Djokovic at any point.

VOLLEY KING
03-07-2012, 04:17 PM
Joker was lucky that Federer just cracked .

After that return Fed double faulted and lost the next 17 out of 21 points .

ark_28
03-07-2012, 04:24 PM
Luck would be if the ball flew into the sky hit a bird and fell back onto the court.

Going for a higher risk higher impact strategy is not luck. Players do this all the time. For example going for a second serve ace. Or taking a ball before it bounces to take time away from the opponent.

Unless a player plays a ludicrous shot, I would never call it luck unless there are external elements involved (such as a lucky net cord, or umpire error etc).

Somehow people have this mentality that if a player was ahead in the game, then he deserved to win. No. Every single point counts.

+1 it was high risk and brave but being a low percentage shot does not make it lucky! And the argument that if it's not luck he would do it all the time is crazy he doesn't need a big shot all the time there he sensed it was time to take a chance and went for it!


Not sure how many of you guys follow cricket but hitting a 6 is the most you can get off one ball! A bit like a home run! So a few years ago West Indies had a match where there were being dominated but there best batsman chanderpaul kept them in it, they needed 6 off the last ball of the game! Technically it's possible of course but given how hard it is to hit a 6 the odds were certainly against the West Indies! But Chanderpaul swung for the fences connected and the ball went for 6! Was he lucky? No. Brave? Yes very similar to Novak.

SStrikerR
03-07-2012, 05:08 PM
The two sets Federer won were extremely close and could have gone either way. The two sets Djokovic won, while hardly blowouts, were decisive. Had Djokovic been really lucky, he would have won in straights. Djokovic was the better overall player in the match, and thus deserved to win, regardless of whether or not that one return was 'lucky'. Likewise in 2010, Djokovic destroyed Federer in two sets, while Federer won two tight ones.

Total points won:

2010 - Djokovic 163, Federer 148
2011 - Djokovic 161, Federer 143

If anything, Federer was lucky to be that close to victory in both matches. Djokovic outperformed his result, while Federer underperformed his.

Not really. Djokovic is the world's best returner, so it's no surprise that he won more points on Roger's serve than Roger did on Djokovic's serve. Unless he gets the break though, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

colonelforbin
03-07-2012, 05:26 PM
Funny thing is, Federer served the same serve, and Djokovic went for the same return (crosscourt slap forehand), at set point in the 2nd set. Except in that instance Djokovic's return went in the net. So it's not a shot Djokovic always makes. I wouldn't call the 5th set return "lucky" exactly (there's a little bit of luck in everything) -- maybe risky's a better word -- but Djokovic just "happened" to make it when he went for it in the 5th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXNc_iMkSIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXNc_iMkSIY#t=7m56s)

jackson vile
03-08-2012, 11:47 AM
What do you call Federers lack of competition for all those years?....lol. Just kidding.

Ouch! Going for the kill.

Vertiz
03-08-2012, 12:37 PM
Everyone's definition of luck varies. I believe every shot has a certain amount of luck to it, because tennis is a game of errors and there is always a chance you will not make the shot, no matter how easy the shot. That return Novak hit was certainly a lower percentage shot than what he would normally go for, so more "luck" was definitely involved in him making it during such a crucial time. The same "luck" could be attributed to his natural abilities to step up during tense situations and make big shots. Everything happens for a reason, and in that particular moment fate decided that Novak was going to make that shot. I don't think the word luck should be used in cohorts with tennis, because there are so many ways to go about connecting the two. It is much simpler to say that Djokovic made a great return when he needed it, while Federer went on to lose the next 17 of 21 points when he was in a great position to win the match.

aprilfool
03-08-2012, 01:03 PM
You create your own luck. The guy happens to be the best returner in the game. Federer was a bit unlucky in the second serve as well, what with his reply barely clipping the net and going out.

A better question would be: did Djoker violate ATP rules by keeping Federer waiting some twenty-six seconds on Federer's serve on the second match point? (Fed had delivered a forty-one second service game two matches prior, so slowing him down was a great strategy)

sunof tennis
03-08-2012, 01:36 PM
I voted lucky, but that comes with serious qualifications. First, it is clear the Djokovic thought he was a goner. We took a big swing at a first serve which is probably not a high percentage play. To that extent he was fortunate the ball landed in. However, he hit the ball cleanly and was going for a spot and hit it. It is not like he framed it or hit a let cord winner. Luck often play a role in deciding a close match. It was lucky only to the extent that he beat the odds. But great players often do.

Towser83
03-08-2012, 01:57 PM
What domination? Winning a tiebreaker at 9-7 and then winning the second set 6-4? That's not domination. I don't know the point totals for each set, but for the match it was 161-143 in favour of Djokovic. It would not have been that far apart if Federer in any way "dominated" the first two sets. I watched the match from beginning to end. The two were toe to toe for the first two sets, with high levels of play from both. Then Federer went awry the next two sets, then picked it up in the fifth. Djokovic was consistently strong throughout, meaning he was the better player, which is precisely what the point totals indicate. It was Federer who underperformed his score, meaning he was "lucky" to be in a winning position at all.

Federer Djokovic matches are often like this, close sets but one guy wins most of them. Being 2-0 up in sets is dominating your opponent. same for US Open 2007, AO 2008 and RG 2011 where the sets were close but one guy was obviously just better when it counted. And it looked for all the world Federer would be knocking Djokovic out which he would have if he didn't dip in form. I love Novak and very glad he won but he's never scored a convincing win over Federer at the US Open and but for 2 points would be 0-5 against him there.

Talker
03-08-2012, 02:03 PM
Not lucky, he was going for it and made it.

If the ball hits the net and just falls over the net, now that's lucky.

djokovic2008
03-08-2012, 02:12 PM
He did the same thing at us open 2010, not luck, he went for it and was rewarded

This..........

djokovic2008
03-08-2012, 02:21 PM
Luck would be if the ball flew into the sky hit a bird and fell back onto the court.

Going for a higher risk higher impact strategy is not luck. Players do this all the time. For example going for a second serve ace. Or taking a ball before it bounces to take time away from the opponent.

Unless a player plays a ludicrous shot, I would never call it luck unless there are external elements involved (such as a lucky net cord, or umpire error etc).

Somehow people have this mentality that if a player was ahead in the game, then he deserved to win. No. Every single point counts.

Great post, this is someone who understands tennis mentality, these greats are trained to make these shots but the best do it under extreme pressure.

VOLLEY KING
03-08-2012, 02:38 PM
I agree....djokovic "went for it " all out!!!

It may have been a high risk shot....but he did make it.

I think it was the single greatest tennis shot of all time.......

not because of the qulaity (which was freaking awesome) but because of the moment......on freaking match point!!!! and it turned around the match. federer just fell apart even double faulting.

all from just one shot. amazing!

jackson vile
03-08-2012, 03:02 PM
I agree....djokovic "went for it " all out!!!

It may have been a high risk shot....but he did make it.

I think it was the single greatest tennis shot of all time.......

not because of the qulaity (which was freaking awesome) but because of the moment......on freaking match point!!!! and it turned around the match. federer just fell apart even double faulting.

all from just one shot. amazing!

It was a jaw dropper for sure, shot hear round the world!

TTMR
03-08-2012, 03:06 PM
Federer Djokovic matches are often like this, close sets but one guy wins most of them. Being 2-0 up in sets is dominating your opponent. same for US Open 2007, AO 2008 and RG 2011 where the sets were close but one guy was obviously just better when it counted. And it looked for all the world Federer would be knocking Djokovic out which he would have if he didn't dip in form. I love Novak and very glad he won but he's never scored a convincing win over Federer at the US Open and but for 2 points would be 0-5 against him there.

It seems, much like your more vicious counterpart DjokovicForTheWin, you're happy to laud Djokovic when he is beating Nadal, but the mood quickly changes when the opponent is your real idol: Federer.

Federer has defeated Djokovic convincingly plenty of times, as recently as RG 2011. But you can't simply say "a set won is a set dominated" and consider a 9-7 tiebreaker the equivalent of a bagel or breadstick. That is incredibly superficial and shallow analysis, and is doubly absurd when at the same time people decry Djokovic for winning by going for a 'lucky shot' when he was, overall, the better tennis player that day, as the point totals indicate. Djokovic deserved every bit of that victory.

devila
03-08-2012, 03:43 PM
if you want to know about luck, federer's the dictionary.
del potro, nalbandian, roddick, haas, falla and djoker all gifted federer slams.
in miami 2005, the linesman ignored nadal's 5-2 lead, but nadal was too respectful to federer to argue the umpire.

no wonder federina called djoker a beneficiary of luck.
djoker was with his childhood coach jelena when she asked him about his us open semi;
he said his forehand was practiced while she coached him many times.

clown federer got lucky when djoker didn't have the
crowd's respect in 2007 and 2008. 20 yr. old djoker double faulted to lose the 2007 us open final (1st set and 3rd set).

Towser83
03-08-2012, 03:48 PM
It seems, much like your more vicious counterpart DjokovicForTheWin, you're happy to laud Djokovic when he is beating Nadal, but the mood quickly changes when the opponent is your real idol: Federer.

Federer has defeated Djokovic convincingly plenty of times, as recently as RG 2011. But you can't simply say "a set won is a set dominated" and consider a 9-7 tiebreaker the equivalent of a bagel or breadstick. That is incredibly superficial and shallow analysis, and is doubly absurd when at the same time people decry Djokovic for winning by going for a 'lucky shot' when he was, overall, the better tennis player that day, as the point totals indicate. Djokovic deserved every bit of that victory.

You are way off dude. I'm a fan of both Federer and Djokovic and although Federer is overall my favourite, in recent years I support Djokovic more than Federer because it's time for him to win the big titles.

As much as I love Djokovic and have supported him against Federer at the US Open every time since 2007 (if he had won earlier i might have supported Federer again but since Novak was always losing i kept on wanting him to get the US Open win) but the fact remains he has been outmatched at the US open by federer,losing 3 times and the 2 times he won, having to save match points.

As I said, Djokovic dominated Federer at the AO in 2008 despite all the sets being really close (I think Federer serve for the first and one was a tiebreak). You don't mention that I said that cos it doesn't suit your "*******" arguments. I've only stated the truth which is Novak has the edge at the AO and Federer has the edge at the US (even having lost the last 2 matches)

I also said many matches between Djokovic and Federer have all close sets but someone is just a bit better in them.I didn't say Federer dominated each set but in the first 2 sets he dominated overall by winning them, thus dominating the match so far. If you lose a set 6-0 but every game went to multiple deuces and you had game points in each, i'd still say the other guy dominated the set overall. Federer at 0-2 down against Nadal in the RG final, i'm not sure I'd argue with anyone saying Nadal had dominated the match thusfur even if each set was close, and Federer had chances to win the first set, I don't recall Djokovic being up in any of the first two sets, could be wrong.

I never said Djokovic hit a lucky shot either, and never said he wasn't the better player overall. Doesn't alter the fact that he almost lost. Points totals, so what? Federer won more points against Nadal at the AO 2009 final, rome 2006 and I think Dubai 2006. All I'm saying is Federer was not lucky to be in the position of winning the match. That's a sstupid as saying Djokovic was lucky to win it.But you're a fed hater so you would say that.

You're wrong if you say I laud Djokovic when he's beating Nadal but not Federer because I've stated he's done things that Federer has not, like dominated Nadal on clay, won with tougher opposition and I want him hold all 4 slams at the same time which Federer never did.

Djokodal Fan
03-08-2012, 05:08 PM
federer Lost the match...So Djoker should have got lucky. What else can it be.I don't see anything otherwise.

c'mon guys Djoker played his heart out. I hve numerous instances where fedex went all in during some of the set poits/match points against my Rafa. Was he lucky on all those instances? i think not.

Its about gamble and playing with that extra ounce of intelligence. Like Fedex, his fans would agree with him and not give Djoker credit for his win. Everyone can see press conference by fedex on youtube for evidence.

Cup8489
03-08-2012, 05:55 PM
It was a jaw dropper for sure, shot hear round the world!

do you know english?

Evan77
03-08-2012, 09:00 PM
I agree....djokovic "went for it " all out!!!

It may have been a high risk shot....but he did make it.

I think it was the single greatest tennis shot of all time.......

not because of the qulaity (which was freaking awesome) but because of the moment......on freaking match point!!!! and it turned around the match. federer just fell apart even double faulting.

all from just one shot. amazing!
yeah, couldn't agree more. that's what great champions do when it really matters. What Novak did was simply amazing. one of my favorite matches ever :).

Roddick33
03-08-2012, 09:08 PM
Coming from a Pokemon forum to here, the change is amazing lulz

grimmbomb21
03-08-2012, 10:29 PM
Any more lucky than a tweener to set up match point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qyvTRVus8

Not in my book. If they were club players then yes, all luck, all the time.:)

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 06:13 AM
Coming from a Pokemon forum to here, the change is amazing lulz

Yes the Pokemon forum is far more sophisticated. :-)

tomaskei123
03-10-2012, 06:27 AM
he treed his mind out on the returns

Peters
03-10-2012, 06:44 AM
It was no more/less lucky than many of Federer's high risk winners in to the corners. The ball is there to be hit, with varying degrees of probability of success. Your skill level determining the likely outcome.

So, if the majority of the people here want to think it was lucky, then by definition they're also saying many of Federer's high risk winners are equally lucky. In my opinion.

I'm not actually a fan of either Novak or Roger, but I have always felt it was sour grapes/needle on the part of Roger. But we've come to expect that from him.

VOLLEY KING
03-10-2012, 06:57 AM
It was no more/less lucky than many of Federer's high risk winners in to the corners. The ball is there to be hit, with varying degrees of probability of success. Your skill level determining the likely outcome.

So, if the majority of the people here want to think it was lucky, then by definition they're also saying many of Federer's high risk winners are equally lucky. In my opinion.

I'm not actually a fan of either Novak or Roger, but I have always felt it was sour grapes/needle on the part of Roger. But we've come to expect that from him.

Ya know Federer won sportsman of the year for so many years.

He is a great champion but he has never been a good sportsman.

This "lucky" comment is just the tip of the iceberg . Crying at the AO after losing to Nadal was about the worst display of sportsmanship I've seen nancy Kerrigan and Harding.

But then it dawned on me .....maybe the "sportsmanship" award doesn't mean what we think it means? I always thought it meant being a good sport?

Maybe what it means is simply being a great man for your sport? Federer was and is definitely that!

jaggy
03-10-2012, 07:37 AM
Yes the Pokemon forum is far more sophisticated. :-)

The thread title has a comic book ring to it for sure

Evan77
03-10-2012, 10:50 AM
It seems, much like your more vicious counterpart DjokovicForTheWin, you're happy to laud Djokovic when he is beating Nadal, but the mood quickly changes when the opponent is your real idol: Federer.

Federer has defeated Djokovic convincingly plenty of times, as recently as RG 2011. But you can't simply say "a set won is a set dominated" and consider a 9-7 tiebreaker the equivalent of a bagel or breadstick. That is incredibly superficial and shallow analysis, and is doubly absurd when at the same time people decry Djokovic for winning by going for a 'lucky shot' when he was, overall, the better tennis player that day, as the point totals indicate. Djokovic deserved every bit of that victory.
well a prime Fed was defeating a baby Djokovic. other than that I do agree with your post. again I believe in skills, and that return was simply amazing.

ernestsgulbisfan#1
03-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Djokovic is a 4.5, at best maybe a 5.0. :)

jackson vile
03-11-2012, 02:25 PM
Ya know Federer won sportsman of the year for so many years.

He is a great champion but he has never been a good sportsman.

This "lucky" comment is just the tip of the iceberg . Crying at the AO after losing to Nadal was about the worst display of sportsmanship I've seen nancy Kerrigan and Harding.

But then it dawned on me .....maybe the "sportsmanship" award doesn't mean what we think it means? I always thought it meant being a good sport?

Maybe what it means is simply being a great man for your sport? Federer was and is definitely that!


http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa331/jacksonvile/djokovic_girlfriend.jpg

Towser83
03-11-2012, 02:50 PM
Ya know Federer won sportsman of the year for so many years.

He is a great champion but he has never been a good sportsman.

This "lucky" comment is just the tip of the iceberg . Crying at the AO after losing to Nadal was about the worst display of sportsmanship I've seen nancy Kerrigan and Harding.

But then it dawned on me .....maybe the "sportsmanship" award doesn't mean what we think it means? I always thought it meant being a good sport?

Maybe what it means is simply being a great man for your sport? Federer was and is definitely that!

I don't like him calling a shot lucky, but maybe one day it'll dawn on you that crying is not an intentional thing and usually happens without your control. Federer has cried many times when he's won and I doubt he made a conscious decision to do it then either.

Might as well say that Nadal retiring against Murray in the AO was a poor lack of sportsmanship :lol:

Good sportsmanship is also about not wasting time, slowing down play, taking dubious MTO, getting on court coaching etc - things which players like Nadal, Djokovic and Delpo do (and Djokovic and Delpo are two of my favourite players)

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 02:54 PM
I don't like him calling a shot lucky, but maybe one day it'll dawn on you that crying is not an intentional thing and usually happens without your control. Federer has cried many times when he's won and I doubt he made a conscious decision to do it then either.

Might as well say that Nadal retiring against Murray in the AO was a poor lack of sportsmanship :lol:

This whole thing about crying is so overblown here, it's crazy. Like you said, Towser, how many people can actually control when they cry? How many can hold in their tears, especially in a painful situation like losing to the guy who just handed you three huge defeats on the biggest stages in the sport?

That's called passion.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 03:05 PM
This whole thing about crying is so overblown here, it's crazy. Like you said, Towser, how many people can actually control when they cry? How many can hold in their tears, especially in a painful situation like losing to the guy who just handed you three huge defeats on the biggest stages in the sport?

That's called passion.

Are we not men?

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:08 PM
Are we not men?

What? Are you telling me that you wouldn't cry if you lost three straight Grand Slam finals to one guy, one being a complete blowout and two being extremely close, and one being lauded as the greatest match ever?

Towser83
03-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Are we not men?

what's that got to do with poor sportsmanship?

Towser83
03-11-2012, 03:14 PM
This whole thing about crying is so overblown here, it's crazy. Like you said, Towser, how many people can actually control when they cry? How many can hold in their tears, especially in a painful situation like losing to the guy who just handed you three huge defeats on the biggest stages in the sport?

That's called passion.

yeah and it probably wouldn't have happened if he didn't have to make a speech.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:17 PM
yeah and it probably wouldn't have happened if he didn't have to make a speech.

Those runner-up speeches have got to be difficult. Federer didn't cry after his French Open loss to Nadal last year. The AO loss was just a culmination of all the changes Federer had to go through in 2008, with the embarassing loss at the French, then the epic at Wimbledon, losses at YEC. The AO just topped it off and was just too much for him to bear.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 03:20 PM
Those runner-up speeches have got to be difficult. Federer didn't cry after his French Open loss to Nadal last year. The AO loss was just a culmination of all the changes Federer had to go through in 2008, with the embarassing loss at the French, then the epic at Wimbledon, losses at YEC. The AO just topped it off and was just too much for him to bear.

yeah that was hard, also because he really had chances to be 2 sets to 1 up and he was probably annoyed at himself that he fell away in the 5th, unlike Wimbledon where he at least pushed Nadal late into the 5th.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 03:25 PM
what's that got to do with poor sportsmanship?

Sorry it's just not ok for a man to cry like that if he loses......that's just not how I was raised or what I personally believe in.

A good sportsman is someone who after losing shakes hands and says "well played".

It's certainly not someone who says "lucky shot".

Federer may be the greatest player of all time . But he is not a very good sport.

The AO blubbering was just the icing.....he has had so many more bad episodes.

But I don't want to go there and bring all of it up.

I personally dont respect how he behaves when he loses. Its embarrassing.

Evan77
03-11-2012, 03:29 PM
oh enough of this 'lucky shot thing'. Novak simply had the balls to do it. It wasn't just one shot, Novak still needed to win few more in order to win that game.

Rog's interview after the match was simply so sad. instead giving some credit to Djok, he was complaining about 'the lucky shot'. whatever. he lost the match. the end of the story,

pc1
03-11-2012, 03:29 PM
It was a low percentage shot but Djokovic is extremely talented (to state the incredibly obvious) and he worked very hard. Wasn't it once said that "Luck is the residue of design." Yes it was lucky in some ways but his hard and his talent allowed him to make that shot.

You can say a lot of low percentage shot winners are lucky but that's what happens with practice. Agassi and Connors hit a lot of lucky returns also I guess.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 03:33 PM
What? Are you telling me that you wouldn't cry if you lost three straight Grand Slam finals to one guy, one being a complete blowout and two being extremely close, and one being lauded as the greatest match ever?

No I really would not.....and by the way neither would Andy Roddick who actually lost 4.

devila
03-11-2012, 03:35 PM
only time i saw a multiple slam winner (not a 13 slam winner) cry
for several minutes was during an agassi retirement speech at the 2006 us open.

i never witnessed fed the loser with the need to talk about crying in the winner's ceremony. the loser continues scowling and crying 10 minutes later, and then a half hour later, the loser was tearing up again.
i never heard fed cry for 20 minutes in his winner's speeches.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 03:44 PM
only time i saw a multiple slam winner (not a 13 slam winner) cry
for several minutes was during an agassi retirement speech at the 2006 us open.

i never witnessed fed the loser with the need to talk about crying in the winner's ceremony. the loser continues scowling and crying 10 minutes later, and then a half hour later, the loser was tearing up again.
i never heard fed cry for 20 minutes in his winner's speeches.

Federer may be the greatest player but he says some Fawked up things and acts just wrong a lot.

The "lucky shot" was a disgusting comment in my opinion . It was very Serena Williams like.

Crying at the AO is just one of a very long list of horrible things he gets away with because he says it nicely .

How many of you think Nadal has a one dimensional game? That was just a bad thing to say after losing.

The list just goes on and on and on......

What amazes me is how he keeps getting away with it?
Everyone says "Federer is so nice and a gentleman".

It's just not true. He may be the greatest player that ever lived.....he may be very suave and smooth and look very classy.....

But images are deceiving.....he says really mean things all the time . The "lucky shot" comment is just another chapter .

And no one calls him on it. The way he behaves its just not right.

devila
03-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Those runner-up speeches have got to be difficult. Federer didn't cry after his French Open loss to Nadal last year. The AO loss was just a culmination of all the changes Federer had to go through in 2008, with the embarassing loss at the French, then the epic at Wimbledon, losses at YEC. The AO just topped it off and was just too much for him to bear.

if it keeps you thinking that fed is a better gentleman than he truly is...
LOL poor guy lost slams and year end "championships".
maybe he should cry until djokovic loses every slam and sees federer wave his stink finger 4 times per yr.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 03:51 PM
Sorry it's just not ok for a man to cry like that if he loses......that's just not how I was raised or what I personally believe in.

A good sportsman is someone who after losing shakes hands and says "well played".

It's certainly not someone who says "lucky shot".

Federer may be the greatest player of all time . But he is not a very good sport.

The AO blubbering was just the icing.....he has had so many more bad episodes.

But I don't want to go there and bring all of it up.

I personally dont respect how he behaves when he loses. Its embarrassing.

Crying is an involuntary thing, therefore whether a man should cry or not, it has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

Federer cried many times when he won a title so he is obviously a person who's emotions come out at the end of the match a lot. In fact he's cried more when he's won than when he's lost. Murray cried when he lost, and he never really cries when he wins yet no-one makes a big deal about that.

Crying at the AO is just one of a very long list of horrible things he gets away with because he says it nicely .

WOW! He CRIED! What a nasty evil vile human being! How could he actually commit the horrid act of crying?

Federer has come out with some bad comments, but so does everyone. Yes even saint Rafa. It is he who is truly the bulletproof one, Federer always gets it in the neck for comments. He did recently when he said Wawrinka didn't play bad and it got mistranslated and he got attacked for it. Nadal can whine about Djokovic's behavior or Federer being physically privileged and people make excuses for him instead of just admitting he's human and can make jerk comments like everyone.... oops now I did it

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 03:56 PM
The list is just to long ......

Remember after the Berdych match he lost ? He just piled on excuses.
Berdych called him a bad loser plus many other instances to name a few ....see a short list here:


http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/413685-federer-piles-on-the-excuses-after-wimbledon-loss

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:59 PM
Federer may be the greatest player but he says some Fawked up things and acts just wrong a lot.

The "lucky shot" was a disgusting comment in my opinion . It was very Serena Williams like.

Crying at the AO is just one of a very long list of horrible things he gets away with because he says it nicely .

How many of you think Nadal has a one dimensional game? That was just a bad thing to say after losing.

The list just goes on and on and on......

What amazes me is how he keeps getting away with it?
Everyone says "Federer is so nice and a gentleman".

It's just not true. He may be the greatest player that ever lived.....he may be very suave and smooth and look very classy.....

But images are deceiving.....he says really mean things all the time . The "lucky shot" comment is just another chapter .

And no one calls him on it. The way he behaves its just not right.

Who is supposed to? If you're referring to the people on this board, then you are very wrong. He gets attacked all the time, sometimes for things he didn't even say. And the people attacking him are the same people that chastise anyone who dares to say a word against Nadal when he says something questionable.

What about Nadal, then? He complains about the tennis calendar, about Federer not doing anything about it, about him supposedly having a "superior" body and not caring enough about everyone else, about Djokovic not coming onto the tour "the right way"?

But it's just Federer who's behavior isn't right, correct?

Towser83
03-11-2012, 04:03 PM
The list is just to long ......

Remember after the Berdych match he lost ? He just piled on excuses.
Berdych called him a bad loser plus many other instances to name a few ....see a short list here:


http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/413685-federer-piles-on-the-excuses-after-wimbledon-loss

yes of course.Federer did have something wrong with his leg but he said it was fine only to backtrack when he lost, which was poor from him.

However, what about Nadal's total lack of sportsmanship after losing to Soderling? His insistance after losing to Delpo 3 times in a row that every time it was os he played badly not because Delpo played well? His attempt to deny he made a very obvious challenge on court against Berdych so he could get a replayed point instead of losing it (much worse than anything saaid off court)? His petty comments over federer saying he was "burning players" and Federer was physically priviledged, just because he didn't want to adopt a stupid 2 year ranking system? Or him saying Djokovic arrived on tour with the wrong attitude, or laughably criticising his celebrations after he practically invented them? Why are you not outraged at these things?

By the way, I agree Roger is sometimes out of line, but the way you're going on about crying is flat out ridiculous. Plus i believe sportsmanship on court is ultimately why Federer wins the sportsmanship award, like i said he doesn't waste time,take dubious MTOs etc.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Sure it was. That doesn't mean the another player should mention that it was though.

VOLLEY KING
03-11-2012, 04:19 PM
__________________
"And let that be a lesson to you all. Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row"

Now that's a good sportsman!

El Diablo
03-11-2012, 04:24 PM
Is there anything more unenlightened than complaining about another person's display of emotion? Federer and others cry sometimes? Good for them!! People are generally only bothered by this when they don't know how to deal with genuine displays of emotion.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 06:05 PM
If anyone has earned the right to tell it like it is, its Federer.

What would Nadal have said?

No one earns a right to be rude.

in miami 2005, the linesman ignored nadal's 5-2 lead, but nadal was too respectful to federer to argue the umpire.


What do you mean?


However, what about Nadal's total lack of sportsmanship after losing to Soderling? His insistance after losing to Delpo 3 times in a row that every time it was os he played badly not because Delpo played well? His attempt to deny he made a very obvious challenge on court against Berdych so he could get a replayed point instead of losing it (much worse than anything saaid off court)? His petty comments over federer saying he was "burning players" and Federer was physically priviledged, just because he didn't want to adopt a stupid 2 year ranking system? Or him saying Djokovic arrived on tour with the wrong attitude, or laughably criticising his celebrations after he practically invented them? Why are you not outraged at these things?

He never denied he'd made a challenge. That is simply not true.

About Soderling, that's the least gracious I've seen Rafa behave, but considering how things are (or were) with Soderling, with Soderling having mocked him in front of a whole stadium... he owes no kindness to him.

Not sure what exactly he said about del Potro, but there's nothing wrong with stating you played poorly if that's what you think.

And the comment about Fed was in answer to something Fed said about him to begin with.

Towser83
03-11-2012, 08:11 PM
No one earns a right to be rude.



What do you mean?



He never denied he'd made a challenge. That is simply not true.

About Soderling, that's the least gracious I've seen Rafa behave, but considering how things are (or were) with Soderling, with Soderling having mocked him in front of a whole stadium... he owes no kindness to him.

Not sure what exactly he said about del Potro, but there's nothing wrong with stating you played poorly if that's what you think.

And the comment about Fed was in answer to something Fed said about him to begin with.

I saw his interview and i'm almost sure he claimed he wasn't challenging, I don't see why he was so mad if he admitted he made a challenge and stop the point of his own accord. Not something that would normally happen but it did. I'm sure there was some other incident recently maybe with Berdych and the same umpire but I can't remember what.

With Delpo, I just think it's a bit ungracious to lose 3 time in a row and then say it didn't matter how the other guy played because you didn't play your best and make excuses for all 3. I mean one match, fair enough, but lose 3 in a row just congratulate the guy, don't basically say "every time i've ever lost to him it was because of me not playing my tennis" I mean Federer got it in the neck for saying some of the matches he lost to Murray he wasn't at his very best.

With Soderling at the French, I don't even blame him for being annoyed at losing at RG but the point is we're all human and can all take things in the wrong way and act a bit poorly sometimes and yeah Soderling is not exactly well liked for good reason (i take issue with the clay mark incident where it looked like blatent cheating, more than the Wimbledon one).

With the Federer thing, Federer never actually mentioned Rafa by name, and apparerntly everyone wants the 2 year ranking right? So why did he have to be talking about rafa? Whenever rafa says anything rafa fans take it at face value and don't read between the lines, with Federer though, people read between the lines and come up with rafa's name. In any case Nadal's reaction was a bit over the top.

But don't worry, like I said I can cut players slack for sometimes slipping up,but it'slike Federer is the only one who gets called out on it. I was just bringing that upwith someone going on about Federer, I don't have anything against Nadal for a few slip ups.

devila
03-11-2012, 10:43 PM
in 2005 miami, nadal's shot was a winner which would've
given him the chance to win in straight sets.
the umpire and linesmen refused to pay attention.
nadal never loudly argued the umpire and then
he lost the match.