2019 RG QF: Federer vs Wawrinka

Winner


  • Total voters
    157
Djokovic got in 21/25 first serves on BPs in that match. Saved 21/25 BPs. Was broken 4 times total in 4 sets. Same as Federer. Some failure of a service game.
Novak being at his peak while fed being past his favored Novak. The faster balls only balanced that out.

Fed was mediocre in the RG 2012 SF - especially ****e on service games - served at 56%, won only 56% of 1st serves (he's won above 70% of 1st serves vs Novak in every other clay court match) and was broken 7 times in 3 sets, FFS.
Choking on important points on his service games + serving second serves going like 10 miles an hour, at any rate it wasn't 2015 level serving

That's not how it works lmao. You can't measure how much it was balanced in any way, and 2011 Fed on clay was already playing extremely well, in part due to the sped up balls

Doesn't matter, it's an RG SF match that Fed lost against Djokovic proving that it was a fluke especially with non-sped up balls. There's no way that any reasonable person would use RG 2011 as the singular reason as to why peak Fed > peak Novak on clay or anywhere else since it was literally one match and that proves literally nothing.
 
F

FRV

Guest
Just got fubo tv so I can watch this. It is ridiculous they don't host anything but the finals on national television in the U.S
Hmm I may be stuck watching Nadal and Nishikori. Though I kind of prefer that. Too nerve wracking watching Fed.
 
Choking on important points on his service games + serving second serves going like 10 miles an hour, at any rate it wasn't 2015 level serving

That's not how it works lmao. You can't measure how much it was balanced in any way, and 2011 Fed on clay was already playing extremely well, in part due to the sped up balls

Doesn't matter, it's an RG SF match that Fed lost against Djokovic proving that it was a fluke especially with non-sped up balls. There's no way that any reasonable person would use RG 2011 as the singular reason as to why peak Fed > peak Novak on clay or anywhere else since it was literally one match and that proves literally nothing.

This argument feels excessively weak. The two have a tied H2H on clay IIRC, and though one would obviously expect Djokovic to win at this stage, and though the 2012 win was far more emphatic, neither match alone necessarily tells us much. What tells us more is that they appear quite evenly matched on a H2H basis on clay, and so one would expect them to trade wins at their best on the surface.
 
Did you even watch Federer at RG 2012 ?
Look while I believe Fred was decent in the SF but he was nowhere close to his usual clay self that tournament.

He lost a set to Ungur, Mahut , Goffin(qualifier at the time) in R2-R4 and then went to 5 after going 2 sets down to Delpotro and would have gone out if Del potro hadn't been injured.

Even Djokovic lost two sets two Tsonga.

Meanwhile in 2011 both Fedovic were murdering the draw.
Yes, I've watched the match. It had great rallies and was overall a fun match to watch

And Djokovic was sucking ass in 2016 AO before he played Fed, your point?

I simply have a problem with people claiming that the RG 2011 match somehow proved anything other than that Fed was still very capable of playing peak tennis against his opponents and how it showcases the closeness in the Fedovic rivalry
 
fed isn't even that robotic to begin with, he was a hot mess of emotions coming up from what he and others said. I think is one of those players who when he walks out court is very calm and doesn't hype himself up, but w/e works for a player.
I think Fed is very calm and composed. Pete was (in)famous for that "hangdog" expression.
 
This argument feels excessively weak. The two have a tied H2H on clay IIRC, and though one would obviously expect Djokovic to win at this stage, and though the 2012 win was far more emphatic, neither match alone necessarily tells us much. What tells us more is that they appear quite evenly matched on a H2H basis on clay, and so one would expect them to trade wins at their best on the surface.
I don't know what you're trying to say? I personally believe peak Djokovic vs peak Fed on clay with normal RG balls is a 50-50 match
 
i can never tell how fed is playing based on comments here, does he looks nervous, is it just hanging on to his service game and not doing much with stan's.

Also i rme at anyone who says fed is only serve, it is the basis of his game now that he is much holder and he does need to be serving well for the rest of his game to wkr, but some people here acting like he is karlovic.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Choking on important points on his service games + serving second serves going like 10 miles an hour, at any rate it wasn't 2015 level serving
he saved 21/25 BPs. got in 21/25 first serves on BPs.
how the f*** is that choking on important points on service games. On the contrary, he was very clutch on important points.
Djokovic won 60+% of 2nd serve points.

that is some absolute cr*p posting from you. Get back in the realm of reality.

That's not how it works lmao. You can't measure how much it was balanced in any way, and 2011 Fed on clay was already playing extremely well, in part due to the sped up balls
you can't say the balls were a bigger factor than what I said either. So mention both or don't mention either. However both are non-negligible factors.

Doesn't matter, it's an RG SF match that Fed lost against Djokovic proving that it was a fluke especially with non-sped up balls. There's no way that any reasonable person would use RG 2011 as the singular reason as to why peak Fed > peak Novak on clay or anywhere else since it was literally one match and that proves literally nothing.
no, it cannot be used as a singular reason. But match was the closest you got prime to prime b/w them on RG.
It is 1 important data point in comparing their peak levels at RG.

another important data point is : Fed being able to hold off a zoning delpo in RG 2009, while djoko was not able to do the same vs a zoning Stan in RG 15.

one adv. for Novak is being able to take Nadal to 5 sets in 2013.

But overall, it could be argued on the basis of above that Fed's peak level at RG is better than Novak's.
 
I don't know what you're trying to say? I personally believe peak Djokovic vs peak Fed on clay with normal RG balls is a 50-50 match

That it wasn't a fluke. That even if I would marginally favour Djokovic even H2H, that Federer would win often enough to show that it's a tight match-up where wins aren't flukes. Fed wasn't a mug who needed all the stars to align to beat Djokovic.
 
Top