Was Jokers return at the USO a lucky shot?

Was the Jokers return just a lucky shot ?

  • Yes it was lucky

    Votes: 88 65.7%

  • No it was not lucky

    Votes: 37 27.6%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 4 3.0%

  • What return?

    Votes: 5 3.7%
  • Total voters
    134
V

VOLLEY KING

Banned
• 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

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
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.
 
Bender

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Bobby Jr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
M

monfed

Guest
VOLLEY KING said:
• 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.”
Click to expand...

Bullzilla is that you? :lol:

Ontopic - He swung for the fences and it went in, it was partially lucky, partially brave.
 
SLD76

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
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?
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Bobby Jr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
TTMR

TTMR

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Last edited:
LuckyR

LuckyR

Legend
Luck? Is it luck when something that happens 5% of the time, actually happens (5% of the time)?
 
T

Tony48

Legend
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?
 
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
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.
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
MichaelNadal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
T

Tammo

Banned
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

dudeski

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Last edited:
M

Magnetite

Professional
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.
 
V

VOLLEY KING

Banned
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

TonLars

Professional
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.
 
B

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
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

DjokovicForTheWin

Banned
dudeski said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ALL IN

Rookie
VOLLEY KING said:
• 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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
V

VOLLEY KING

Banned
ALL IN said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Laurie

Guest
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

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
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

Love all

Semi-Pro
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.
 
W

wimble10

Semi-Pro
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

Mustard

Bionic Poster
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

DeShaun

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
TTMR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
dudeski said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
DjokovicForTheWin

DjokovicForTheWin

Banned
SLD76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. QFT.
 
dudeski

dudeski

Hall of Fame
SLD76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
dudeski said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

FlamEnemY

Hall of Fame
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.
 
TTMR

TTMR

Hall of Fame
Towser83 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

kragster

Hall of Fame
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

kragster

Hall of Fame
TTMR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

TTMR

Hall of Fame
kragster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
FED's secret short slice shot SOLVED by the Joker
Replies
11
Views
3K
hyper_raiden
hyper_raiden
M
  • Poll
Which pair of tennis players have the saltier relationship, Medvedev & Tsitsipas or Federer & Djokovic?
Replies
31
Views
917
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
user
  • Poll
Federer - Djokovic at USO (3-3)... Whose career was hurt more?
Replies
13
Views
2K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
RF-18
Brain Game: Djokovic Serves Up Clever Tactics For Victory
Replies
10
Views
1K
corners
C
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Djokovic, Canadadian Open semifinal, 2010
Replies
2
Views
1K
metsman
metsman
Top