I was rooting for Federer to win by the fifth set of 2019W and Djokovic slightly late in the 2013FO semi because I did think they were playing better particularly because they were also more offensive. But, the aura of superiority that Djokovic had established over Federer by then and Nadal had in 2013 over Djokovic at the FO definitely helped carry them over the finish line.
OK. I agree with that.
Many times I have supported the underdog in matches where they played better than the favorite for most of the match, but they end up losing and disappointing me because they can’t make that critical shot on a big point when it matters like on a break point or match point.
At such times you have to wonder if the eventual winner won because the underdog stopped getting lucky (because if you are playing above yourself, that's temporary), or if fear/doubt stopped that underdog from closing it out. I don't know.
One of the reasons I’ve believed that Djokovic is the BOAT/GOAT over Federer (apart from a better BH) and Nadal (apart from playing more aggressively closer to the baseline) is because except against Nadal at the FO in 2012-14, Djokovic seemed to be the more confident player in most of their matches since 2011 even though his level wasn’t that much higher than them.
I'll skip the whole damned GOAT thing, which I think is ludicrous. But it's pretty clear to me that from about 2011 on he had an edge over Fed. At that level, even being 1% better is going to win many important matches.
Nadal and Federer always made the crucial errors late in matches when victory was in their grasp whereas Djokovic was usually soundly beaten when he lost and rarely lost close matches.
I don't know if this is true, but I won't argue. What I do think is that the 2 hander is simply a better defensive shot. It equalizes the difference between forehand and backhand effectiveness. That's clear going all the way back to Connors, Borg and Evert, so all players. From then you when you look at guys who win defensive stats, it's almost always the two handers. So if it's so obviously effective on return, the only reason I can see for not using the 2 hander is if it somehow limits approaches and net play. For me this is uncertain. One one hand, when you look at guys like Becker, Edberg, Sampras and so on, and Mac, and Laver, it seems that the guys who were legendary at the net had that 1 hander game. Add BJK and Navratilova. When you think of the alpha fast court players, you sort of think 1 hand. At least I do.
But it only takes one player to reset assumptions. Why can't a 2 hander approach just as well, when today all 2 handers use a 1 hand slice? Is there some principle I'm not getting? If you learn the 1 hand slice, why would you have any problem volleying on that side? Even Connors had a good two hand backhand volley, but he could not be more aggressive because of his weak serve.
It seems to me that Djokovic IS the modern model for the most effective game, mostly, but a better net game would be awesome (he has improved it), and the so-called pathetic overhead is not truly a weakness, or every opponent would lobb him to death.
I don't like the look of the 2 hander as well, but it seems to me that it is the superior shot, and it goes back a LONG way.
Yes, the mental aura is real and that’s why it is tough for younger players to unseat ATG-level champions unless they are helped by technology change - grass to more hard/carpet surface, wood to metal/graphite/bigger racquets, gut to poly strings etc.
Good point. This could be why Rosewall and Laver stayed on top for so long. During their careers their equipment mostly did not change.