Will Roger Federer recover mentally when he lost in the Wimbledon final 2019 against Novak Djokovic?

octogon · Oct 16, 2019

Fed's already recovered. He was probably in a funk for about two months afterwards. but I think he's over it. Fed is quite good about shaking off painful losses.

But it doesn't matter if he's over it. He's not the favorite at any slam now. Not even Wimbledon. And he's getting less difficult for some of the younger players to beat. Not even Federer can defeat Father Time.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

SaintPetros said:
Some minds can't grasp the brilliance of Steinbeck or Fitzgerald either, though I do admit I'm surprised the Matrix was beyond you.

Yes, it's kinda weird how self-contradictory, muddled, pseudo-intellectual stupidity is always beyond me. I can't seem to ever grasp the Stoopid Logic of Tinseltown's hyped MTV-sheep flicks... Colour me shocked that you "understand" it...

(You probably missed this, coz you might have been busy stalking Pete's YT clips, but Matrix is a meme, for its unabashed, child-like attempts at making a grand socio-political statement... Low-tier hipster detected...)

SaintPetros · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Yes, it's kinda weird how self-contradictory, muddled, pseudo-intellectual stupidity is always beyond me. I can't seem to ever grasp the Stoopid Logic of Tinseltown's hyped MTV-sheep flicks... Colour me shocked that you "understand" it...

(You probably missed this, coz you might have been busy stalking Pete's YT clips, but Matrix is a meme, for its unabashed, child-like attempts at making a grand socio-political statement... Low-tier hipster detected...)

And yet you couldn't grasp it or how hipster it is to bash Hollywood films as pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo hipster trash. Oh the irony...

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

SaintPetros said:
And yet you couldn't grasp it, like you couldn't grasp metaphor or overt sarcasm or how hipster it is to bash Hollywood films as pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo hipster trash (that's ironic). I detect a pattern here...

Newsflash:

Hipsters are immersed in trashy popular culture, MTV and Tinseltown included. It's the new brand of hipster, the millennial hipster. They only criticize what's high-quality, revere kitsch only.

I detect a pattern here...

SaintPetros · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Newsflash:

Hipsters are immersed in trashy popular culture, MTV and Tinseltown included. It's the new brand of hipster, the millennial hipster. They only criticize what's high-quality, revere kitsch only.

I detect a pattern here...

Yet its you who bashes PETE and serve and volley while revering modern grinding which besides the big 3 is about as enjoyable as watching a log rot...is this another sliver of self-awareness breaking through like sunrise at the crack of dawn?

terribleIVAN · Oct 17, 2019

octogon said:
He's not the favorite at any slam now. Not even Wimbledon. And he's getting less difficult for some of the younger players to beat. Not even Federer can defeat Father Time.

He'll be 1 month shy of 39 the day of the W 2020 final.

He'll basically be competing there as a 39 year old.

Watch Goffin and Kyrgios wet their pants against him yet again.

Deleted member 744633 · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
"With friends like these, who needs enemies..."

Sampras quote, after Agassi compared him to an ape on a tree

Slam bhai, years ago when I heard that comment by Agassi, I realized one thing ... if class bit Agassi on his a*rse, he wouldn't know it. Racist comments like that have no place in any sport so needless to say, I derived great satisfaction from Pete beating him time and again on the big stage in the years that followed!

DSH · Oct 17, 2019

terribleIVAN said:
He'll be 1 month shy of 39 the day of the W 2020 final.

He'll basically be competing there as a 39 year old.

Watch Goffin and Kyrgios wet their pants against him yet again.

ghostofMecir · Oct 17, 2019

beard said:
Fed "bounced back" as soon Novak sinked to his tennis bottom... Hope that doesn't repeat... There are few youngsters that emerged so he wont "bounce back" so easily...

Instead of beating your chest, you should be embarrassed that a 38 year old completely outplayed your hero/god and only “lost” due to a massive choke. Should be thankful the old man choked and gifted him a Wimbledon title in which Djokovic didn’t beat a top 20 player and the one good player he faced, he won the least % of points against of any slam finalist in the Open Era that we have data for.

beard · Oct 17, 2019

ghostofMecir said:
Instead of beating your chest, you should be embarrassed that a 38 year old completely outplayed your hero/god and only “lost” due to a massive choke. Should be thankful the old man choked and gifted him a Wimbledon title in which Djokovic didn’t beat a top 20 player and the one good player he faced, he won the least % of points against of any slam finalist in the Open Era that we have data for.

Haha, Federer choked sooo many times thru whole carrier, it have nothing to do with his age....

By the way , wouldn't change that Novak's wins for triple 6:1... When its all set and done those 40:15 will always be special one...

40:15

Yugram · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Thank God for ignore... yet you still DON'T ignore... Because your will to learn is stronger than the bias?

Vulturing is a term that means something else. Winning slams when your biggest rivals are injured. Was RF injured when Novak became a GOAT in 2011?

No.

Was Rafa injured in 2011?

No.

Was Novak injured and struggling when RF FINALLY started winning slams after 5 years in 2017?

Yes.

Did RF stop winning slams once Novak came back in 2018?

Yes.

It's very simple. Vulturing is a simple concept, no need to complicate it.

Was Nadal injured at RG 2016?

ghostofMecir · Oct 17, 2019

beard said:
Haha, Federer choked sooo many times thru whole carrier, it have nothing to do with his age....

By the way , wouldn't change that Novak's wins for triple 6:1... When its all set and done those 40:15 will always be special one...

40:15

You’re crowing about the fact that your hero/god was beaten by a 38 year old by any other measure other than tennis’s absurd AD system of scoring?

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil · Oct 17, 2019

ghostofMecir said:
You’re crowing about the fact that your hero/god was beaten by a 38 year old by any other measure other than tennis’s absurd AD system of scoring?

Finally a new, creative complaint.

Let's blame the scoring system when Fedr couldn't close out a bloody 40-15 on grass.

Yugram · Oct 17, 2019

ghostofMecir said:
You’re crowing about the fact that your hero/god was beaten by a 38 year old by any other measure other than tennis’s absurd AD system of scoring?

Yeah, that’s the scoring system to blame, not that Federer is a well known mental midget.

Maybe astrology can provide us some other reasons of Federer’s Wimbledon loss?

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
Was Nadal injured at RG 2016?

Yes, he was.

One difference though. Novak beat Rafa at FO. If that doesn't make Novak deserving of a title there, dunno what does...

Because Novak beat Rafa on clay 6-7 times, including FO the previous year, we cannot ASSUME Rafa would have won FO in 2016.

It was a weak year for Rafa, similarly bad to 2015.

Verdict: not vultured.

terribleIVAN · Oct 17, 2019

beard said:
wouldn't change that Novak's wins for triple 6:1... When its all set and done those 40:15 will always be special one...

40:15

It's clear to me that's what Fed fans fear the most: the clear evidence Fed's an atrocious choker.

They all argue it's better to lose in a fifth set after having match points than in 3 straight sets: they're of course wrong.

It's much better to be overplayed than to have the match in your grasp then let it slip away because you lacked the nerves in front of the whole world.

Shows you lack belief deep down and have fear of losing: not how a champion should behave.

Sorry Fed fans: the cat is out of the bag: the countdown has now begun for Fed ending his career on an atrocious choke at his best tournament.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

terribleIVAN said:
It's clear to me that's what Fed fans fear the most: the clear evidence Fed's an atrocious choker.

They all argue it's better to lose in a fifth set after having match points than in 3 straight sets: they're of course wrong.

It's much better to be overplayed than to have the match in your grasp then let it slip away because you lacked the nerves in front of the whole world.

Shows you lack belief deep down and have fear of losing: not how a champion should behave.

Sorry Fed fans: the cat is out of the bag: the countdown has now begun for Fed ending his career on an atrocious choke at his best tournament.

He's lost 5 QF/SF/F slam matches in which he had match points. Perhaps a record?

Naturally, he's played the most such big matches of anybody, but that's still way too high.

Marfrilau · Oct 17, 2019

terribleIVAN said:
It's clear to me that's what Fed fans fear the most: the clear evidence Fed's an atrocious choker.

They all argue it's better to lose in a fifth set after having match points than in 3 straight sets: they're of course wrong.

It's much better to be overplayed than to have the match in your grasp then let it slip away because you lacked the nerves in front of the whole world.

Shows you lack belief deep down and have fear of losing: not how a champion should behave.

Sorry Fed fans: the cat is out of the bag: the countdown has now begun for Fed ending his career on an atrocious choke at his best tournament.

Ah yes. The good old "it's better to never try at all than to try and fail". That's definitely the saying...

ghostofMecir · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
Yeah, that’s the scoring system to blame, not that Federer is a well known mental midget.

Maybe astrology can provide us some other reasons of Federer’s Wimbledon loss?

That wasn’t the spirit of the post and you know that (I think).

2019 Wimbledon Finals “loss” for Federer

Total points: 218 to 204 for Federer
• Breaking serve: 7 times for Federer, 3 times for Djokovic
• Receiving points won: 79 for Federer, 64 for Djokovic
• Dominance Ratio: 1.15 in favor of Federer
• Winners: 94 for Federer, 54 for Djokovic
• FH winners from baseline: 18 for Fed, 14 for Djokovic
• BH winners from baseline: 7 for Fed, 8 for Djokovic

So...other than in the AD scoring system, how else is this defined as a “loss”?

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Marfrilau said:
Ah yes. The good old "it's better to never try at all than to try and fail". That's definitely the saying...

That's not the same as TerribleLendl said... Losing in 3 sets a slam finale does not mean one didn't try...

ghostofMecir · Oct 17, 2019

terribleIVAN said:
It's much better to be overplayed than to have the match in your grasp

For fans, yes, it’s easier to swallow, but as an evaluation of a player? No, absolutely not. Nadal got destroyed into utter oblivion at the AO and there’s nothing else to say.

Federer outplayed Djokovic and was the better player by every measure other than in the AD system. If we’re evaluating a player, the Wimbledon “loss” rates as a better performance than looking like a challenger in front of the whole world. .

Frank Bannister · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
Yeah, that’s the scoring system to blame, not that Federer is a well known mental midget.

Maybe astrology can provide us some other reasons of Federer’s Wimbledon loss?

Is this necessary? I mean you're a Nadal fan, right?

You have no idea how he's going to handle tying, much less breaking Fed's record that he accumulated somehow whilst being a mental midget. We already saw how nervous he got playing Medvedev. Damn near choked it away.

Marfrilau · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
That's not the same as TerribleLendl said... Losing in 3 sets a slam finale does not mean one didn't try...

If you got to 5 sets then you obviously tried harder. You failed in the end but you tried harder. Thinking it's better to be blown off of the court is the same thinking as it's better to lose in 1R than to lose in the final to your rival. I most often see this line of thinking from Nadal fans for some reason. Quite odd given who their idol is.

Yugram · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Yes, he was.

One difference though. Novak beat Rafa at FO. If that doesn't make Novak deserving of a title there, dunno what does...

Because Novak beat Rafa on clay 6-7 times, including FO the previous year, we cannot ASSUME Rafa would have won FO in 2016.

It was a weak year for Rafa, similarly bad to 2015.

Verdict: not vultured.

If we assume that 2017 Djokovic could beat Nadal at USO then we can do the same about 2016 RG.

ForehandRF · Oct 17, 2019

Frank Bannister said:
Is this necessary? I mean you're a Nadal fan, right?

You have no idea how he's going to handle tying, much less breaking Fed's record that he accumulated somehow whilst being a mental midget. We already saw how nervous he got playing Medvedev. Damn near choked it away.

He is looking for every opportunity to put Fed down, doesn't matter if Nadal is in the conversation or not.

TheGhostOfAgassi · Oct 17, 2019

weakera said:
Federer lost to Nole at W2019? Hadnt even known that, was it a close match?

I turned off the tv at 40-15, he had it in the bag. No need to watch any further. He must have won.

Frank Bannister · Oct 17, 2019

ForehandRF said:
He is looking for every opportunity to put Fed down, doesn't matter if Nadal is in the conversation or not.

Mental midget is too much.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Marfrilau said:
If you got to 5 sets then you obviously tried harder. You failed in the end but you tried harder. Thinking it's better to be blown off of the court is the same thinking as it's better to lose in 1R than to lose in the final to your rival. I most often see this line of thinking from Nadal fans for some reason. Quite odd given who their idol is.

More odd is that you assume the number of sets prove the effort levels of the losing player.

3 sets loss - loser did not try much

4 sets loss - loser tried more

5 sets loss - loser gave his all

You actually believe this nonsense?

If I played Federer I d lose 60 60 60, yet I'd give it my everything. I'd lose with the same score if I didn't try at all.

The score isn't what you believe it is.

TheGhostOfAgassi · Oct 17, 2019

Sunny Ali said:
Nothing cocky about that remark, Forehand because let me remind you I don't get a single dollar from anything Djokovic wins. Federer is the 2nd best grass court player in the world behind Djokovic, so nobody is going to stop him until he gets to the final.

Maybe he is lucky and Novak gets injured. That’s how Fed won slams lately.

ForehandRF · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
If we assume that 2017 Djokovic could beat Nadal at USO then we can do the same about 2016 RG.

The problem is that Novak owns Nadal on non-clay since many years now.

Rafa does not own Novak on clay anymore.

Their H2H since 2011 has been heavily in Novak's favour.

TheGhostOfAgassi · Oct 17, 2019

ForehandRF said:
I've seen you complaining about some of Fed's fans on this board, but take a look at your post.

But, Federer won right?
I didn’t watch the match
(I actually didn’t watch the match live, I watched parts of it 2 months later)

Deleted member 744633 · Oct 17, 2019

TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Maybe he is lucky and Novak gets injured. That’s how Fed won slams lately.

Agreed, he'll need a huge dose of luck.

KINGROGER · Oct 17, 2019

TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Maybe he is lucky and Novak gets injured. That’s how Fed won slams lately.

Like Nadal really.

Deleted member 744633 · Oct 17, 2019

KINGROGER said:
Like Nadal really.

Both the old men need luck

TheGhostOfAgassi · Oct 17, 2019

KINGROGER said:
Like Nadal really.

Not in RG

Marfrilau · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
More odd is that you assume the number of sets prove the effort levels of the losing player.

3 sets loss - loser did not try much

4 sets loss - loser tried more

5 sets loss - loser gave his all

You actually believe this nonsense?

If I played Federer I d lose 60 60 60, yet I'd give it my everything. I'd lose with the same score if I didn't try at all.

The score isn't what you believe it is.

You'd give everything in that given match sure. But overall have you given everything and tried to become a tennis player that could beat Federer? I doubt it.

I must admit though I got a bit too literal in what I was trying to say. My point was that the line of thinking presented by terribleIVAN is the same as "it's better to lose in 1R than to lose in the final to your rival". And if you follow that logic to its end then it's better to sit on your couch and do nothing than to try at something and fail. I suspect it's because then you can say that he never had a chance to begin with and the loss doesn't matter. But objectively speaking going further in a tournament or going 5 sets instead of 3 will always be a better result. Subjectively tougher to swallow sure but objectively better.

Yugram · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Rafa does not own Novak on clay anymore.

He does. But surface was not my point anyway. If we say that 2016 Nadal was irrelevant at RG, then so was 2017 Djokovic at US Open.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
He does. But surface was not my point anyway. If we say that 2016 Nadal was irrelevant at RG, then so was 2017 Djokovic at US Open.

I've explained why this is not true.

Yugram · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
I've explained why this is not true.

I guess because 2017 Djokovic was sooo so stronk that he got bageled and straight setted by Thiem.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

Yugram said:
I guess because 2017 Djokovic was sooo so stronk that he got bageled and straight setted by Thiem.

Nadal vultured USO17 because Novak was playing a bad year due to an injury.

Doesn't mean it's not deserved.

StrongRule · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Yes, he was.

One difference though. Novak beat Rafa at FO. If that doesn't make Novak deserving of a title there, dunno what does...

Because Novak beat Rafa on clay 6-7 times, including FO the previous year, we cannot ASSUME Rafa would have won FO in 2016.

It was a weak year for Rafa, similarly bad to 2015.

Verdict: not vultured.

Dude, that was 2015 Nadal, his worst ever form. It's a joke to even call that a win. You can talk about Djokovic being good on clay in general, but pointing on his wins over past his prime 2014-2016 Nadal is BS. And yes, Nadal was bad in 2016 and would have probably lost. But put any decent Nadal, and Djokovic wouldn't have won RG 2016.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

StrongRule said:
Dude, that was 2015 Nadal, his worst ever form. It's a joke to even call that a win. You can talk about Djokovic being good on clay in general, but pointing on his wins over past his prime 2014-2016 Nadal is BS. And yes, Nadal was bad in 2016 and would have probably lost. But put any decent Nadal, and Djokovic wouldn't have won RG 2016.

Was he injured?

No.

Case closed.

I'm not interested in primes/peaks/shmeeps.

If Nadal sucked in 2015 that's his fault.

StrongRule · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
Was he injured?

No.

Case closed.

I'm not interested in primes/peaks/shmeeps.

If Nadal sucked in 2015 that's his fault.

Yes, he was. He was injured in 2014 which was obviously part of the reason why he was in terrible form in 2015. It's honestly a joke to point at that win as a "proof" that Djokovic deserves a title in RG. All he had to do to beat this version of Nadal was to show up.

Funniest thing is that you obviously believe Thiem doesn't deserve any credit for destroying Djokovic in RG 2017 with a bagel. Because when it's about Djokovic form suddenly matters.

UnderratedSlam · Oct 17, 2019

StrongRule said:
Yes, he was. He was injured in 2014 which was obviously part of the reason why he was in terrible form in 2015. It's honestly a joke to point at that win as a "proof" that Djokovic deserves a title in RG. All he had to do to beat this version of Nadal was to show up.

Funniest thing is that you obviously believe Thiem doesn't deserve any credit for destroying Djokovic in RG 2017 with a bagel. Because when it's about Djokovic form suddenly matters.

When did I say this?

Thiem's win is impressive because in 2017 he was still an up-and-comer basically. However, fact is it's much easier to beat 17 Novak than 11 or 15 Novak.

Rafa said himself that 2015 was a bad year mainly due to lack of confidence. 15-16 is well-known as Rafa's low confidence era.

However, low confidence is not an EXCUSE, it is an EXPLANATION.

People tend to confuse excuse and explanation, like they confuse cause and effect...

StrongRule · Oct 17, 2019

UnderratedSlam said:
When did I say this?

Thiem's win is impressive because in 2017 he was still an up-and-comer basically. However, fact is it's much easier to beat 17 Novak than 11 or 15 Novak.

Rafa said himself that 2015 was a bad year mainly due to lack of confidence. 15-16 is well-known as Rafa's low confidence era.

However, low confidence is not an EXCUSE, it is an EXPLANATION.

People tend to confuse excuse and explanation, like they confuse cause and effect...

And beating 2015 Nadal is the same thing as beating prime Nadal in RG?

TheGhostOfAgassi · Oct 17, 2019

StrongRule said:
And beating 2015 Nadal is the same thing as beating prime Nadal in RG?

Hasn’t been as easy beating Nadal in RG since he was 17 or something compared to 2015.

terribleIVAN · Oct 17, 2019

ghostofMecir said:
For fans, yes, it’s easier to swallow, but as an evaluation of a player? No, absolutely not. Nadal got destroyed into utter oblivion at the AO and there’s nothing else to say.

Federer outplayed Djokovic and was the better player by every measure other than in the AD system. If we’re evaluating a player, the Wimbledon “loss” rates as a better performance than looking like a challenger in front of the whole world. .

The problem is when you call yourself a champion.

When you do that and comes crunch time and your nerves fail you, that's it. The champion moniker gets thrown out of the window and is replaced by "good player but a choker".

If instead you get easily beaten, it leaves the possibility to improve next time and people will still watch and hope and give you a chance in their hearts.

Everybody can identify with a contender, but nobody can identify with a choker.

ForehandRF · Oct 18, 2019

Fed needs to understand that sometimes it's better to win ugly than losing the way he did.At 40-15 he should have targeted Novak's body with a powerful serve or even hit an underhand.

Respect for big 5 · Oct 18, 2019

terribleIVAN said:
He'll be 1 month shy of 39 the day of the W 2020 final.

He'll basically be competing there as a 39 year old.

Watch Goffin and Kyrgios wet their pants against him yet again.

Same sort of age as Connors in his US open run of 91. He reached the semis with a grinder game style. I would never write Fed off at Wimbledon

Will Roger Federer recover mentally when he lost in the Wimbledon final 2019 against Novak Djokovic?

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 744633

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Deleted member 744633

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 744633

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Similar threads