abmk
Bionic Poster
I'm sure he doesn't care about what Tomic said.
Australian Open 2016 SF - [1] Djokovic vs. [3] Federer
- Thread starter Adv. Edberg
- Start date
I'm sure he doesn't care about what Tomic said.
Edgecrusher
Professional
Now as Murray and Raonic are tied 1 - 1 I guess you´re right!
user
Professional
Djokovic was never Nadal-type player, bringing his best in each and every match whether it's Barcelona 1R or RG Final. Most of the time during early rounds, he was/is going to bring the level he deemed necessary, no more than that. That "habbit" is probably partially responsible for playing so many 5-setters, sometimes things get out of hand.
The reason why "he wants to make an example of somebody. I.e. Nadal" is that he probably wants do do all in his power to prevent 2013 from happening all over again. With Federer it is a bit different matchup, he is better than Nadal atm, and can do more damage, but it seems that Djokovic has a clear strategy on how to beat him. If Federer's serve isn't at 100%, it's over pretty quickly.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Yes. I also think it's a bit of psychological warfare. He wants his opponents to fear him even before the match. Something that seems to be working.
So even if you're playing good against Djoko you know that he can put in another gear.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
And then of course against somebody like Nadal he just wants to crush him to show everybody who the boss is.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
2-1 Raonic now. But not sure who would have biggest chance of beating Djoko. Murray or Raonic.
I'm leaning towards Raonic. Djoko also doesn't respond well to big servers like Raonic when he can't get any rhythm etc.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
After 8 full years here and over 30000 posts, you don't know basic things about the game and your favourite.
Spouting "Captain Obvious" level "analysis", facts that are making rounds here and trying to sound knowledgeable (even in your latest response, lol).
You should be ashamed that you don't know what happened so that Nadal can actually be what he is/was.
A true ************* member, indeed.
bobombom
Rookie
Haha no, poor word choice on my part
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Just to make this clear: you post like you know what happened to Kuerten, when in reality you have no idea about him, apart from the (sigh) obvious and known to almost everyone fact that he got injured, which shortened his career.
That is why you couldn't ask my pretty basic question.
And, of course, you are wrong again.
He did establish himself as a trendsetter, that is why we know about him and that is why he is mentioned in this and many other conversations.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
I don't know man, I didn't recognise Fed this match. Even though he's semi retired he looked slower than usual and a bit flat/lost out there I think.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
He was the first to use poly strings. And we all know what happened to tennis after that.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Many of his net approaches looked like he was trying to escape from being too pressured to keep playing the way that plays in Novac's hands (i.e. he was going for ending the point regardless of the outcome).
Yeah, something like this. But also think he wasn't prepared mentally for this match. Or he just simply had a really bad day at the office when nothing worked.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I don't think that he played particularly well in the first two sets, no.
And to those, who say that Djokovic "took his foot off the pedal" and explain the following two sets with this: count the number of times Federer made unforced errors from different positions in the first and the second set (I think there must be some kind of problem with the stats on the AO website, as they count a laughable number of UE for the match or at least that is what I see).
How many times his shots sailed long.
I am actually quite amused, when people say that Federer did the wrong thing AGAIN.
I distinctly remember when (probably the same) people were calling for him to shorten the points, even if it means taking more risks in order not to play exhausting tennis that greatly harms his chances.
Now that he does just that, his opponents receive praize for "exposing him", when it is clear as day that, what he does, is out of necessity in order to play a more suitable for his current abilities tennis (I don't think that anyone disputes, how bad his approach shots in that match were).
Yeah, the results are not great, but they are not disastrous either.
After all he was in the SF and he beat several opponents with the same type of game.
Last edited:
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
LOL. Many a food business has failed in the San Poobiego area due to feasibility studies that didn't take into account "the Sureshs Factor".
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Even if they had taken him into account, they still would have failed with him generously partaking of their relatively meager offerings.LOL. Many a food business has failed in the San Poobiego area due to feasibility studies that didn't take into account "the Sureshs Factor".
That is my considered opinion, although according to some, the environmental effect of Poobs is more devastating than the famine[1] he is causing in the Americas. For some philosophers, flora and fauna have as much a right to live as do humans.
[1] - I'm a Vegan thread.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
I agree with this.
novak has lost some big matches that perhaps federer would not. example are wawrinka and nishikori...this is due to styles and matchups..
Adv. Edberg
Legend
I think people overplay Djokos level in the first 2 sets. He played good, but that's it. Fed on the other hand did his worst match of the year. More UEs than he's done in a long time.
Sure Djoko made it difficult for him to play good. But that's always been one of Feds features. That he always reach a certain standard no matter the level of the opponent.
Also he was really slow. Especially his reactions. For me, Fed was more bad than Djoko was good!
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
he did. But that doesn't mean it had anything to do with what Tomic said.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
No true, but he didn't look like himself out there. Bad timing and looking lost frankly at times. Like his head was somewhere else.
abmk
Bionic Poster
pretty much this.
djokovic was only able to "hit" federer off-court because of federer's age ( declined reflexes, not enough sting on forehand ) and his court-positioning. it wasn't that djokovic was hitting like stan or soderling or del potro.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Djokovic was certainly impressed with himself regarding the first two sets. He considers them to be the two best sets he's ever played against Roger. I CAN see why, but he was aided substantially, by the way Roger went about things stubbornly and without adaptation.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Novak took that all into account already.
Such blatant and unbridled disrepect for Novak from you. So common on these boards.
Unbelievable.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
USO final was over pretty quickly? Well after he lost the first set fed had little chance to win, but it wasn't really over till the tail end of the third.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Federer was not trying to shorten points outside the third set. That is what was frustrating.I don't think that he played particularly well in the first two sets, no.
And to those, who say that Djokovic "took his foot off the pedal" and explain the following two sets with this: count the number of times Federer made unforced errors from different positions in the first and the second set (I think there must be some kind of problem with the stats on the AO website, as they count a laughable number of UE for the match or at least that is what I see).
How many times his shots sailed long.
I am actually quite amused, when people say that Federer did the wrong thing AGAIN.
I distinctly remember when (probably the same) people were calling for him to shorten the points, even if it means taking more risks in order not to play exhausting tennis that greatly harms his chances.
Now that he does just that, his opponents receive praize for "exposing him", when it is clear as day that, what he does, is out of necessity in order to play a more suitable for his current abilities tennis (I don't think that anyone disputes, how bad his approach shots in that match were).
Yeah, the results are not great, but they are not disastrous either.
After all he was in the SF and he beat several opponents with the same type of game.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I haven't overlooked the age but Djoko is about a year younger and Nadal was way more precocious (that is why Nadal became #1 3 years before Djoko). So while the age difference is not big, Djoko was a challenger to Nadal BEFORE breaking through not the opposite.
As for the head to head, since 2011, it's 17-7 Djoko (that doesn't exactly spell "toe to toe"). But if you want to play the game of selective stats, it's:
3-1 Nadal at RG
1-0 Djoko at AO
1-0 Djoko at W
1-1 at USO
So that's 4-4 with 3 out of Nadal's 4 coming at the same slam (RG)
It's 2-0 Djoko at WTF and 8-3 Djoko in masters
I think my analysis of overall rivalry reversal is rather on the mark ( RG being the exception rather than the rule)
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yeah but that doesn't mean that he used spin as well or as efficiently as Nadal did.
Nadal was the first player to dominate clay to such an extent, so, all of a sudden the reasons why nobody could beat him became a huge topic.
Novak is exuding killer instincts right now.
He is discharging extra venom toward Federer and Nadal.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Not a trendsetter in a way even remotely comparable to Nadal. I'm sure Kuerten was a huge deal in Brazil but in terms of dominance, his was extremely limited in time, scope and impact compared to Nadal's.He did establish himself as a trendsetter, that is why we know about him and that is why he is mentioned in this and many other conversations.
Sure, he won 3 RG but not much else : a couple of M-C, 1 Rome, 1 Hamburg and then gone whereas Nadal won everything on clay for a whole decade. Of course Nadal' s style of play and the (technical) reasons of his clay invincibility were discussed at length/in depth in a way Kuerten's never were.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Another thing i notice in this match was federer's lousy placement on his serve. His serve's very predictable for novak. He doesn't move the ball around. Novak guesses right everytime.
i thought some of novak's returns were miraculous( or lucky ) in 1st 2 sets.
you get shaken if someone returns like that, imho.
user
Professional
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Federer's serve was pretty good in that match. "Over pretty quickly", like the result is a foregone conclusion after Djokovic wins the first set, I didn't mean like over in 2 hours.
Anyway, USO final was weird for many reasons. I don't want to seek excuses, and I don't need to really, because Djokovic won it, but:
1. Djokovic's level dropped significantly after Wimbledon,
2. He couldn't serve properly, because of that nasty fall,
3. The crowd was despicable, and surely contributed to a closer match that it should have been.
What I've learned from this past 3 GS meetings is that Federer can not beat this Djokovic. He needs to go all or nothing to win a set, even on grass court. If Djokovic's level drops, maybe then he'll have a chance, but I'm sure he won't outlast him, even with his style of play, he has 1-2 more good years probably.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
You thought Federer serve was pretty good and Djokovic couldn't serve properly? Whatever....
Regardless your last two lines are spot on unfortunately. He's not beating Djokovic at a slam ever again.
123456789
Professional
I watched the match. Fed played like garbage and Novak played well, not out of the world. Stop cryingNovak took that all into account already.
Such blatant and unbridled disrepect for Novak from you. So common on these boards.
Unbelievable.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Off to another of your tirades, in an effort to sound knowledgeable, eh?
trendsetter. n
: someone who starts a new fashion, style, etc., or helps to make it popular
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trendsetter
Guga was as a trendsetter as anyone can be. (Nadal is merely a consequence and its most prominant representative).
If you knew something about the game, you would have known that (not only because of the player, but also because of the style, equipment etc.)
Even your constant bickering about how great Nadal is cannot hide your ignorance anymore.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Well, he knows that he cannot outlast Djokovic in a Best of 5 from the baseline anymore, so he might just as well try something different, no?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
In that case, Bruguera is the trendsetter because he used massive spin as well (even before poly).
I maintain that Nadal pushed the style to an extreme that had never been seen before with a degree of success that had never been reached and he will always be singled out for it. (Of course Nadal made it more spectacular also because his athletic abilities were so far superior than any other player)
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Yep I agree. But also Fed is 35 and semi retired so he's bound to be tired at the end of a slam.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Well, he knows that he cannot outlast Djokovic in a Best of 5 from the baseline anymore, so he might just as well try something different, no?
Was surprised he didn't do more S/V. He did approach the net plenty, but usually in the wrong moment.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Look at the word trendsetter and tell me which part you don't understand.
Kuerten also smoked Brugera with his "massive spin" in the RG final in 1997 and went on to do great things on HC as well (much like Nadal, but, unlike Nadal he won the respective version of the WTF in a very fine company).
What you don't understand is that Kuerten could rely on his strings to do things that were never before possible at such a level (and that he used his spin in a different way compared to Brugera) and much more similar to what Nadal would later use (funnily enough, your "favourite" currently uses Luxilon, the brand that also Guga used, if I am not mistaken).
Not only you are ignorant, but you are committed to mask that with aggressive talking about Nadal (looking for comparison between Nadal and Kuerten, when this is not a subject of this conversation at all) and spewing useless/irrelevant facts.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You have got to weight that against the damage that someone, who expects something like that from you, can do in such cases.
I truly saw Federer going to the net in the first two sets out of necessity to cut on the baseline rallies.
Last edited:
moonballs
Hall of Fame
To those who wishing Murray to play attacking, aggressive tennis, please realize Murray is indeed capable of playing that way but he only does it when he is desperate. In 2014 he often went for huge shots playing Djokovic but that was when he has no chance of winning. Tomorrow he will play conservative because he is not hopeless to win.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
If he's not desperate not to lose his 5th AO final, when will he ever be?
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Good question. The dilemma with Murray is that the only way he can play all out tennis is when he realizes he has no chance of winning. Now after he edged out Raonic by his lobs he will never go for it in the final.If he's not desperate not to lose his 5th AO final, when will he ever be?
But I think of one scenario that can save him: his wife goes to labor in the first set. He will then try to end the point with one or two shots!
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Ha ha good one
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
I think Fed ceding ground on the baseline and opening up the court against this opponent in these conditions could open a whole new can of worms, but it may well have been necessary. Another 10-15% of first serves in and better 2nd serve returning would have helped a great deal also. Even with one of those we may have had a decider.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
But Sureshs is a super-bacteria according to @Firstservingman
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
IS that some sort of hyper-parasite ?
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Neither are aggressive players. They're both baseline pushers so difficult to change that. But he could have still done some S/V even though he doesn't have a good volley. But maybe it would've thrown Djoko off at least.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Anyway, Murray or Federer didn't seem too bothered with the outcome of their matches. Whoever would've won.
joekapa
Legend
Baseline pushers ?
A Pusher is a player like Simon.
Murray and Djokovic build the point up, and go for winners when they are ready.
Similar threads
- Poll
