Absolutely agree with this.
I do enjoy Djokodal matches too, especially RG 13 SF (Nole should've won) but that 17 final is my favourite experience watching tennis.
Australian Open 2017 final vs Australian Open 2012 final (which final match was better)?
- Thread starter Ganstaz003
- Start date
I do enjoy Djokodal matches too, especially RG 13 SF (Nole should've won) but that 17 final is my favourite experience watching tennis.
Federer did in 06 and 11. 6-1 first set then 0-40 on Nadal's serve 3rd set at 2-1 up.
11 5-2, 40-30 up misses an ill timed drop shot.
Djokovic should've won one of their matches too in 12-14.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
The difference is that guy would never ever say a match that wasnt the style he likes was a better match even if it clearly was. Whereas you and I might prefer a certain kind of match , but would be fair and often give credit to other players or matches played in a different style than Djokodal matches. Whereas that guy never would. It is ironic that he said you picked the match Djokovic won just because of that, when clearly it is the opposite. He's the one who's doing that so he assumes everyone else does too. It's projection at its finest..
Unbelievable .
So, we should take your word on what this poster either would or wouldn't do, when both of you are saying the exact same thing from opposite sides of the argument? That's ridiculous and arrogant. You're essentially saying "You think the other match was better, I think this match was better, but I'm a better person because if I wasn't right (though I absolutely am) I'd give you credit."
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
This post sounds like projection.The difference is that guy would never ever say a match that wasnt the style he likes was a better match even if it clearly was. Whereas you and I might prefer a certain kind of match , but would be fair and often give credit to other players or matches played in a different style than Djokodal matches. Whereas that guy never would. It is ironic that he said you picked the match Djokovic won just because of that, when clearly it is the opposite. He's the one who's doing that so he assumes everyone else does too. It's projection at its finest..
Unbelievable .
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
I would be very interested to see the 'ball in play' times for both matches. I saw a stat on screen a few years ago for the 2012 match and it was frankly ridiculously low, relative to the match length from memory.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
What makes it 2012 easily? You compared the 2017 final to the 2009 final, saying it wasn't as good (which I agree), but how is it 2012 easily? 2009 was better than 2012 aswell. The drama of that fifth set alone with the break points, and the weight of history in both their shoulders with their main rival at the other end of the court makes it one of the best finals in recent memory.
First of all there should have never been a fifth set. Secondly, Nadal's 22 (if I remember correctly) in the fifth set alone are nothing, right? The whole match was decided by one point.
Let me remind you then that Nadal had a similar error in AO 2012 final. Even a worse one I'd say.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
First of all there should have never been a fifth set. Secondly, Nadal's 22 (if I remember correctly) in the fifth set alone are nothing, right? The whole match was decided by one point.
Let me remind you then that Nadal had a similar error in AO 2012 final. Even a worse one I'd say.
I agree that Nadal never should have let it get to a fifth. A mixture of good play on important points and good fortune for Djokovic, and poor play from Nadal at the key moments early on let it drag out. But I think you have to concede that while he may not have reached the position entirely from his own shot making, he would have been at least a 50-50 chance to win if he managed to hold.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Lol, the 2012 final and quite comfortably. Those saying this year's final was more epic and dramatic have very short memories.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
First of all there should have never been a fifth set. Secondly, Nadal's 22 (if I remember correctly) in the fifth set alone are nothing, right? The whole match was decided by one point.
Of course everything wasn't decided on this single point. But whatever the reasons, the match *got* to this point. And at this stage, Nadal was exceedingly lucky with the net business. The fact that he could/should have won before does not enter into consideration. If you will, he had let his chance pass and was gifted another one when it looked like he was going to lose after all.
Totally agree. This was exactly the same, but in reverse, and this time, it was Djokovic who was very lucky to be gifted another chance after blowing his lead in the fourth set. In both cases, one of them should have lost in four, but their opponent couldn't close it out and they then went 4-2 up in the fifth, got to game point (and even BP for a double break for Nadal, if memory serves)... and then *they* couldn't close out the match and they basically folded when they were, if not cruising, at least solidly in the lead for like the first time in the match (not exactly for AO 2012 as Nadal took the first set, but you see what I mean).
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The difference is that guy would never ever say a match that wasnt the style he likes was a better match even if it clearly was. Whereas you and I might prefer a certain kind of match , but would be fair and often give credit to other players or matches played in a different style than Djokodal matches. Whereas that guy never would. It is ironic that he said you picked the match Djokovic won just because of that, when clearly it is the opposite. He's the one who's doing that so he assumes everyone else does too. It's projection at its finest..
Unbelievable .
Well you are probably right but the thing that tells me he is doing exactly what you are saying is when he says it was a "snoozefest" and not only better quality but "much better quality". That's complete crap. That's like me saying the 2009 final wasn't great at all and poor quality. Since I'm a tennis fan and can give credit to players that are not my fave, I would never say something like that. It's clear as day which match was played at a higher level. It's ok to say I liked this match better but it was poor quality? Nope.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic-Wawrinka 2015 was a garbage match. 2013 was an epic, 2014 was good, but not on the level of 05/09/13 epics.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
How is 2017 winning? lol.
2012 was two gladiators at the peak of their powers pounding each other into pulp.
The Murray Djokovic Semi 2012 was better than the AO2017 and prob even the AO2012 final lol. Unreal ball striking in that match.
2012 was two gladiators at the peak of their powers pounding each other into pulp.
The Murray Djokovic Semi 2012 was better than the AO2017 and prob even the AO2012 final lol. Unreal ball striking in that match.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I can accept anyone saying that 2009 was better than 2012 because the quality was off the charts. I prefer 2012 because I prefer those type of battles and have preferred the Djokodal rivalry over the years anyway but it's fine if others prefer 2009. 2012 was also dramatic with a lot on the line with lots of drama in the 5th set where Djokovic came back from behind to win. However, 2017 is not close to quality of either of those and it's fine saying you prefer it for nostalgic reasons but it is in no way a better match,
roysid
Legend
That happened in set 3. Tons of breakpoints yet failed to convert any one. On one point He had full forehand court open to hit a winner but chose to go to backhand
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
The 2012 AO was 90 minutes of tennis and 4.5 hours of ball bouncing, toweling off and time wasting between points. That is literally the truth, Cahill did a graphic on that at IW 2012 when commentating and looking back on the AO.
So 2017 wins hands down and not just because Fed won it, because at least one player was using 15 seconds between serves instead of 32.
So 2017 wins hands down and not just because Fed won it, because at least one player was using 15 seconds between serves instead of 32.
N
nikdom
Guest
What happened in 2012? Sorry I wasn't paying attention.
abmk
Bionic Poster
2012 AO final:
djoko : 57 winners, forced 65 errors from nadal, 69 UEs
nadal : 44 winners, forced 63 errors from djokovic, 71 UEs
so basically :
122 winners+FEs from djokovic to 69 UEs
107 winners+FEs from nadal to 71 UEs
2017 AO final:
federer : 73 winners, forced 49 errors from nadal, 57 UEs
nadal : 35 winners, forced 47 errors from federer , 28 UEs
so basically :
122 winners+FEs from federer to 57 UEs
82 winners+FEs from nadal to 28 UEs
However I wouldn't use these in a direct comparison at all because :
a) surface in AO 2017 was clearly significantly faster than the one in 2012.
b) nadal/federer were clearly slower in 2017 than nadal/djokovic in 2012.
abmk
Bionic Poster
@125downthemiddle :
Read posts 74 and 75 to learn how and when to use stats and when not to
unlike the excuses for the stats in RG 2013 SF b/w nadal/djokovic in comparision to RG 2011 SF b/w federer/djokovic which had :
federer having better stats than nadal in the respective SFs
djokovic having much worse stats in 2013 SF than in the 2011 SF.
Read posts 74 and 75 to learn how and when to use stats and when not to
unlike the excuses for the stats in RG 2013 SF b/w nadal/djokovic in comparision to RG 2011 SF b/w federer/djokovic which had :
federer having better stats than nadal in the respective SFs
djokovic having much worse stats in 2013 SF than in the 2011 SF.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
In order of quality:
2009
2012
2017.
2009
2012
2017.
maratha_warrior
Hall of Fame
With due respect ,
2012- match between Rank 1 & 2 players , aged 25-26 , both playing 3rd consecutive grandslam final and had to fight for 6.5 hours to find a winner ..
2017 -match between rank 17 & rank ( 7-10 ) guy .. Rank 17 guy playing his first tournament after 6 month injury break & Rafa too took 3 month break before this event . moreover Rafa reached his first semi final & final at a slam after 3 years ..
Comparison between these two matches is funny .
2009 & 2012 deserves comparison ,not 2017 ..
Eventhough , Fed winning it at age 35 was magic .. but still , lets not compare it to epic historic matches .
2012- match between Rank 1 & 2 players , aged 25-26 , both playing 3rd consecutive grandslam final and had to fight for 6.5 hours to find a winner ..
2017 -match between rank 17 & rank ( 7-10 ) guy .. Rank 17 guy playing his first tournament after 6 month injury break & Rafa too took 3 month break before this event . moreover Rafa reached his first semi final & final at a slam after 3 years ..
Comparison between these two matches is funny .
2009 & 2012 deserves comparison ,not 2017 ..
Eventhough , Fed winning it at age 35 was magic .. but still , lets not compare it to epic historic matches .
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
I agree regarding the 2017 final, the shotmaking is always more impressive in the Fedal matches, because they are the best shotmakers on Tour.
Mr Feeny
Hall of Fame
Took the words out of my mouth. A significant portion of the match consisted of one player trying to make a hole in the floor as he bounced the ball senseless 40 times before every serve, and another player adjusting his shorts and fixing his hair.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
2017 please, Bob.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
2017 is a bit overrated because of the circumstances and because everyone's lasting memory is the 5th set.
But 2012 is one of the most overrated matches I've ever seen period. It gets so much love because it went 6 hours, which tricked everyone into thinking they were watching this great gladiatorial match of the titans. But In my eyes it was a match between two of the slowest guys on tour who spent more time bouncing the ball on the service line than playing, inflating the clock. The fact that neither one knows how to hit a winner so every point lasted 20 strokes is what made it last so long, not their "unwillingness to yield" or whatever.
But 2012 is one of the most overrated matches I've ever seen period. It gets so much love because it went 6 hours, which tricked everyone into thinking they were watching this great gladiatorial match of the titans. But In my eyes it was a match between two of the slowest guys on tour who spent more time bouncing the ball on the service line than playing, inflating the clock. The fact that neither one knows how to hit a winner so every point lasted 20 strokes is what made it last so long, not their "unwillingness to yield" or whatever.
Fedeonic
Hall of Fame
2017, and I'm not getting blinded by my Federer bias on it.
First, the Fedal 2017 match featured more polarizing styles, because of it, it featured a higher quality of shotmaking, the 2012 Djokdal final was more of an attrition war. While Djokovic and Nadal were more close to their peaks in 2012 than Federer and Nadal in 2017, many of the 5:53 hrs of the 2012 final were wasted on ball bouncing and time wasting.
Finally, the stakes, drama and history at the 2017 final were much higher than the 2012 final.
PS: I still think the 2009 Fedal final was much much better than both, quality and drama wise (at least the first 4 sets).
First, the Fedal 2017 match featured more polarizing styles, because of it, it featured a higher quality of shotmaking, the 2012 Djokdal final was more of an attrition war. While Djokovic and Nadal were more close to their peaks in 2012 than Federer and Nadal in 2017, many of the 5:53 hrs of the 2012 final were wasted on ball bouncing and time wasting.
Finally, the stakes, drama and history at the 2017 final were much higher than the 2012 final.
PS: I still think the 2009 Fedal final was much much better than both, quality and drama wise (at least the first 4 sets).
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
1st of all the many of the posters here all have a history of never ever giving credit no matter how good a match was in terms of quality if it featured Djokovic or Djokodal together. You can see by some of the comments here calling it boring, slow, grindfest etc. I dont make similar comments in the opposite direction. 2nd of all, I often give credit to Federer and Fedal matches.
3rd of all Im not saying its impossible people could genuinely think the Fedal 17 match was higher quality, but it sure is surprising if there is no bias.
Consider AO 12 was Djokodal in their athletic peaks. 17 was Fedal over the hill having a resurgence for sure...but far from their peak. Nadal especially in terms of movement.
HailDjokovic
Semi-Pro
2012 was actually better quality and a much more intense match.
But the AO 2017 put federer's career on the line as well as Nadals. (If Rafa had won that match he would be sitting at 16)
The classic federer nadal rivalry, with their opposite playstyles was fun to watch.
So 2017?
But the AO 2017 put federer's career on the line as well as Nadals. (If Rafa had won that match he would be sitting at 16)
The classic federer nadal rivalry, with their opposite playstyles was fun to watch.
So 2017?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Oh so you criticized me for giving a brief "smartass" statement and then you do the same here
Priceless.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
This is a good example of the bias Im talking about... using this logic no matter HOW good a Djokodal match was, a match with Federer in it would be seen as higher quality. I might prefer a certain style of play, but I dont have this bias.
Understand @Shank Volley . Please refute this, genius.
Just all come out and say you hate boring, grinding tennis or whatever and stop pretending to be impartial.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Bolded no.1: it was 5:53 h. Never got anywhere near 6.5 hours. If it had got there, the players would have needed 2 stretchers to be carried out of there.
Bolded no.2: Nadal was no.9. Sorry, I just had to put it out there.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
2017. So much on the line. And after Nadal broke early in the 5th I'm sure most people thought it was over.
2005 SF - Safin def. Fed 97 in the 5th is better than both. Just amazing tennis from both.
2005 SF - Safin def. Fed 97 in the 5th is better than both. Just amazing tennis from both.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
if you want to be technical, Nadal's athletic peak was nowhere near 2012 (it was 05 clay season-09 AO). But the overall point is true.
cockneyDjoker
Hall of Fame
They were both great matches. Simply because they both happened on the 29th. Which is the C**k's birthday
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
2012 was a higher quality match from what I remember but 2017 had more drama. But the latter could be due to my rooting interest. I LOVED that Australian Open final in 2012 though, it was fantastic.
I remember Rafa's groundstrokes in 2012 were faster in the 5th set than they were in the 1st set. He is a god. I thought the graphic showing that was lying
I remember Rafa's groundstrokes in 2012 were faster in the 5th set than they were in the 1st set. He is a god. I thought the graphic showing that was lying
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Technically, if one likes to rate quality per time, then the more time is spent on preparations compared to actual play, the worse it is. That for me is also the rationale behind preferring shorter points: while the best long rallies are particularly exciting, many/most points aren't spectacular, so overall longer points mean a greater chunk of time for mundane, not exciting ball exchanges.
That comment was still too harsh, sure. Clearly 2012 had better overall quality, while 2017 had an electric 5th set and special historical weight (although 2012 was also Nadal's first attempt at DCGS, no small feat).
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
That wasn't really the case in 2012, though. It was simply the slow conditions (court plus night time) letting Nadal and Djokovic both get to lots of balls and keep the rally going. Also, the flipside is in a match with short points, many of them will be simply serve followed by a return that either doesn't get over or is weak.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Not being a smart ass. That post does sound like you're projecting.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I cited specific examples. Guess you dont want to address that. What a biased joke.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
It really was astonishing the levels to which they were stretching out the time between points. If they'd played it at a more reasonable pace, even taking an extra hour on top of the ball in play time, I would gladly proclaim it as one of the best 5 set matches ever. As it stands, none of the people at my tennis club could stomach watching the whole thing again. And not because it's 'grinding' and 'defensive', because it would basically be watching two guys rub towels on themselves and sit down on benches, then occasionally play tennis.
The pace of play in 2017 was entirely different, in both the aggressive/defensive matchup and the amount of time spent between points. Perhaps Nadal spent just as long, but Federer was there to balance it out with his machine gun service games.
Similar threads
