Controlling the middle of the court: Why Djokovic is so hard to beat

[NatF]

Zzzzzzzz. Hey boo

You were underrating Arod a fair bit man . I kind of feel Federer just crushed him mentally, young Roddick was a good athlete with an amazing serve and one of the best ground games of any guy with his level of serve we've seen - he had a swagger on the court where he really believed in himself. Post 2004/2005 I think he lost that inner belief when he realised how big the gap with Federer was - I think Hewitt wrecking him 3 straight times at the end of 2004 and early 2005 probably hurt as well.

His game ended up going backwards and he became really self-deprecating. Kinda weird because in matches the guy was a big fighter but not so much when you look at his career trajectory.

 

[abmk]

Zzzzzzzz. Hey boo

 

[RF-18]

0 winners to 14 UEs according to official stats.
https://web.archive.org/web/2015020...n.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day17/1601ms.html

forced 16 errors from Stan. so ended up with 16 winners+errors forced to 14 UEs in that set.

Where can you find the forced errors? Can't see it in that link.

 

[NatF]

Where can you find the forced errors? Can't see it in that link.

You have to work it out yourself.

Take the winners and opponents UE's from the points won.

 

[abmk]

Where can you find the forced errors? Can't see it in that link.

Of course not. They don't show that in the stats (unfortunately).

Points won by a player = Winners+Errors forced from opposite player+unforced errors of opposite player

so Errors forced from opposite player = Points won by player - Winners - unforced errors of opposite player

in this case, for Djokovic in the 4th set :

= 27 - 0 - 11 = 16.

 

[mika1979]

Djokovic was lucky that he played Federer 30 times since 2011.

We just have to accept facts as they are

Fed was lucky to play djokovic 2006-2010

 

[Fiero425]

Fed was lucky to play djokovic 2006-2010

Except in that 2010 USO SF where Nole saved 2 MP's to come back for the upset! Fed enjoyed that humiliation so much he repeated it in 2011!

 

[RF-18]

Of course not. They don't show that in the stats (unfortunately).

Points won by a player = Winners+Errors forced from opposite player+unforced errors of opposite player

so Errors forced from opposite player = Points won by player - Winners - unforced errors of opposite player

in this case, for Djokovic in the 4th set :

= 27 - 0 - 11 = 16.

So I did the same for Waw in the 4th set, and if I got it right, he forced 8 errors from Djokovic?

So Waw had 11 winners+8 forced errors in the 4th?

 

[abmk]

So I did the same for Waw in the 4th set, and if I got it right, he forced 8 errors from Djokovic?

So Waw had 11 winners+8 forced errors in the 4th?

yes, Stan forced 8 errors from Djokovic in the 4th set.
I'd use errors forced rather than forced errors to be clear.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I like the overall analysis from the OP.
I've always admired Djkovic's ability to change the direction of the rally - from both wings.
Those who find his style of play boring must not appreciate that element - it's not the pure power/speed of Nadal (although he also has strategy and artistry) or the grace and artistry of Federer (who also has great court coverage and power). Djokovic is a little more subtle in his tactics/execution.

Prior to this, I had never heard the term "court-splitter" - something to think about.
I also hadn't seen the stat about Novak's success on shorter rallies - a trend that should make his success more sustainable.

 

[KINGROGER]

8-2 in the last h2h against a player who ended 3 months ago a 52-2 streak against other players, and we should believe the reason was age???

Slam H2H before 2013: 6-5

After 2013 / racket change/movement decline: 0-4

I wonder what the difference was.

 

[tennisaddict]

Slam H2H before 2013: 6-5

After 2013 / racket change/movement decline: 0-4

I wonder what the difference was.

It is absolutely ridiculous why some Djoker fans completely ignore the age aspect.

Just because Fed is able to beat the next gen and lost gen, which in general has been the worst for several decades, they absolutely disregard Federer's age

He is 37 years and 3 months. He is a full generation older to Djokovic.

 

[Fiero425]

It is absolutely ridiculous why some Djoker fans completely ignore the age aspect.

Just because Fed is able to beat the next gen and lost gen, which in general has been the worst for several decades, they absolutely disregard Federer's age

He is 37 years and 3 months. He is a full generation older to Djokovic.

No one's disregarding his age; just not caring! If he wants to hang with the big boys, he can either excel and win like he's done over Nada over late or take his beatings like a man! Who cares how old he is; ranked #3 taking care of business enough to remain amongst "The Big 4!" What else needs analyzing? If he wants to make age an issue, maybe he should graduate to the senior tour with the other old fossils!

 

[tennisaddict]

No one's disregarding his age; just not caring! If he wants to hang with the big boys, he can either excel and win like he's done over Nada or take his beatings like a man! Who cares how old he is; ranked #3 taking care of business enough to remain amongst "The Big 4!" What else needs analyzing? If he wants to make age an issue, maybe he should graduate to the senior tour with the other old fossils!

Well, there is no big achievement in having a 37 year old as No 2 and No 3 for most of your career. That speaks a lot about the competition more than Federer

 

[tennis24x7]

SF of the WTF in 2014 is the only place where Wawrinka pushed Fed outside of clay and came awfully close to winning. Stan needs more time to setup his shots and yes Federer takes time away from him which gives him trouble. But putting aside the technicalities, I always felt like their was more to this match-up as far as why Federer dominates. I always get the feeling that whenever these 2 play, Wawrinka tends to lose his "killer instinct" because he's friends with Federer and sorta sees him as an "older brother".

You hit the nail on the head. Fed himself said in a interview that he has given lot of advice to Stan and he listened, so he can blow fed away but chooses not to.

 

[bjsnider]

Next check his 2nd serve returns: 54% this year, again great for normal mortals, but down from his career average of 56%. Again his current stats are probably back up to 56%. We'll know for sure as 2019 develops.

The stats are almost totally useless because this stretch of play begins with grass, and the stats also include the earlier period where he was spinning his wheels. The 12-month totals after RG next year will be the gold standard.

I never heard that term but most likely it describes the players who win more than 30% of games on return. It has to be true also of Nadal these days because he is getting stronger and stronger on the backhand side, and this would describe Murray.

Also, Nishikori, and probably Coric at this point. Stan also hits defense and offense from both sides very well, when the ball stays in. But those guys are not exactly balanced from both sides, which only proves Djokovic is an outlier of an outlier.

I think what you are highlighting is the exact reason why the "weapon" players are not as good at winning long rallies. Their strategy is always to regain that "weapon advantage" returning. You can see this with Fed, especially this year. His 1st serve return rate remains very good, and the reason is that all servers are at a complete disadvantage after any serve when facing deep returns with pace because they are already into the court, inside the baseline, and those who don't have a great half volley and/or a super ability to hit on the rise can be shocked into a weak return, and then the "weapon" player steps right in and pounces. Whereas a guy like Djokovic totally takes over on 2nd serve return points with probing returns and then the knowledge that if it comes to a war of attrition, he's going to win it. But because he's so good at redirecting even on defense that gives him a tactical weapon to shorten return points.

Djokovic knows he only needs to get to neutral. Neutral to Djokovic is like control for anyone else.

After I posted the original argument, it occurred to me that, maybe the next stage in tennis evolution will be players always breaking the Directionals in an effort to beat Djokovic, and then each other. Not the current players, but the younger ones still in training. Perhaps Djokovic's style will point the way to the future. Whaddaya think of that?

 

[Fiero425]

Well, there is no big achievement in having a 37 year old as No 2 and No 3 for most of your career. That speaks a lot about the competition more than Federer

It's happened before and it'll happen again! There were tons of players from past generations that were Fed's age and competed well! How soon we forget Rosewall, Laver, Ashe, and of course Connors! They were still highly regarded even approaching 40!

 

[BeatlesFan]

In a nutshell, Djokovic at his best (2011 and 2015) is great because he rarely misses, is mentally a beast and almost always gets the extra ball back into play. You can over-analyze it all you want, but that's the essence of his greatness.

 

[bjsnider]

Interesting.
What do you think makes him so consistent?

Earth-shattering talent I guess. Also, he's different from most players in that he constantly tries to iron out weaknesses in his game, and add new strengths. Someone pointed out that he's coming forward a lot more now. When he was very young he was not known for a great return, so that developed. And back in the day he had an error-prone forehand. He still acts like he's a talented but raw teen trying to climb the ladder.

 

[bjsnider]

Court-splitter is the perfect term for Djokovic's playing style. And yes, his nonpareil knack for winning the direction-shift game is at the core of his success. And while many claim to find Djokovic boring, I tend to find that kind of style very exciting – it's basically geometry played out on a tennis court. I put Nishikori in that same general ballpark, Goffin too.

I completely missed Nishikori due to carelessness. He's a court splitter and a threat to Djokovic on a good day.

I think saying he can't be beat, is pushing it. As the aforementioned Craig O'Shaughnessy has argued, Wawrinka has laid out one playbook to beating the Djokovic game. If you hit the ball deep and penetrating enough, then even the most skilled court-splitter like Djokovic will be pushed back into a space where his changes of direction become both harder to execute and less effective. Of course, this is an extremely fine tightrope to walk and a high-risk game plan. But Stan has shown it can be done.

What I meant by that paragraph was, is it possible for a player to enter the arena with Djokovic and expect to win every time, as for example, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic would if they were playing almost anyone else? I don't think so.

 

[tennisaddict]

It's happened before and it'll happen again! There were tons of players from past generations that were Fed's age and competed well! How soon we forget Rosewall, Laver, Ashe, and of course Connors! They were still highly regarded even approaching 40!

And how long ago was that ? Like 40-50 years back ? How is it even relevant ?

 

[BeatlesFan]

And how long ago was that ? Like 40-50 years back ? How is it even relevant ?

Past ATG's are always relevant. In today's millennial generation when attention spans are literally counted in seconds, the moment Fed, Nadal or Djoker retire, it'll be like, "who the f--- were they?"

 

[Fiero425]

And how long ago was that ? Like 40-50 years back ? How is it even relevant ?

I can't tell what you want; you're being quite irrational at the moment! You need reassurance in some way; got nothing for you! I was a huge fan of Federer and didn't mind he took over being The GOAT over Sampras! I just thought his time was done in 2012, but he hung on for 5 years of winning little but the odd Masters due to dominance of Rafa and Nole! He got a reprieve with Nole dropping out with injury and Murray hobbled! Don't get me wrong, it was a real accomplishment winning these last 3 Majors and actually dominating his best rival, beating Rafa quite a few times in a row! I just assume he bow out sooner than later and allow the next gen to "get in there!" They're still in awe and gutlessly allow him free passage when he's playing quite poorly of late!

 

[tennisaddict]

Past ATG's are always relevant. In today's millennial generation when attention spans are literally counted in seconds, the moment Fed, Nadal or Djoker retire, it'll be like, "who the f--- were they?"

I didn't say what Connors and Rosewall did were irrelevant. I said quoting those to say what Fed is doing nothing special is disingenuous.

The game has turned very physical and we are seeing all players go up to 34 and then fade out. Fed is the ONLY exception.

 

[tennisaddict]

I can't tell what you want; you're being quite irrational at the moment! You need reassurance in some way; got nothing for you! I was a huge fan of Federer and didn't mind he took over being The GOAT over Sampras! I just thought his time was done in 2012, but he hung on for 5 years of winning little but the odd Masters due to dominance of Rafa and Nole! He got a reprieve with Nole dropping out with injury and Murray hobbled! Don't get me wrong, it was a real accomplishment winning these last 3 Majors and actually dominating his best rival, beating Rafa quite a few times in a row! I just assume he bow out sooner than later and allow the next gen to "get in there!" They're still in awe and gutlessly allow him free passage when he's playing quite poorly of late!

Federer made 2014 Wimb Finals, 2014 USO SF, 2015 Wimb Finals, 2015 USO Finals, 2016 AO - he was repeatedly stopped by just only 1 player at the ripe old age of 33-34.

You guys will gain perspective when Djoker reaches 35 and see the kind of defeats he has. When he loses to the likes of Coric and Kyrgios, you will appreciate the talent Fed was .

 

[Fiero425]

Federer made 2014 Wimb Finals, 2014 USO SF, 2015 Wimb Finals, 2015 USO Finals, 2016 AO - he was repeatedly stopped by just only 1 player at the ripe old age of 33-34.

You guys will gain perspective when Djoker reaches 35 and see the kind of defeats he has. When he loses to the likes of Coric and Kyrgios, you will appreciate the talent Fed was .

As a very good tennis historian, I'm quite aware of those major SF's & Finals made by Fed; hence my confusion of what you could possibly be kvetchin' about because back then Fed wasn't 37! Catch up sometime! Not concerned about Nole's potential losses to the "Next Gen!" When it happens I'll deal with it; right now he's "owning it" and about to reclaim his crown as #1! He has few points to defend early next season! He will probably pull away from Rafa and catch up to Fed in weeks at the top!

 

[mike danny]

Fed was lucky to play djokovic 2006-2010

Why even mention 2010 when neither player was playing well that year?

Federer was so lucky that he only played Djokovic 14 times in his prime vs 26 times in Novak's prime.

 

[mike danny]

It's happened before and it'll happen again! There were tons of players from past generations that were Fed's age and competed well! How soon we forget Rosewall, Laver, Ashe, and of course Connors! They were still highly regarded even approaching 40!

Except Laver didn't win any slams after 31 and neither did Connors.

Heck, Connors lost the last 17 matches against the younger Lendl after he turned 32 or so.

 

[tennisaddict]

As a very good tennis historian, I'm quite aware of those major SF's & Finals made by Fed; hence my confusion of what you could possibly be kvetchin' about because back then Fed wasn't 37! Catch up sometime! Not concerned about Nole's potential losses to the "Next Gen!" When it happens I'll deal with it; right now he's "owning it" and about to reclaim his crown as #1! He has few points to defend early next season! He will probably pull away from Rafa and catch up to Fed in weeks at the top!

He is never going to catch up to 20 majors, hope you realize that. When the fall comes, it comes in double quick succession. People often think if Fed can do it, so can anyone else.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Good analysis OP.

I would like to understand more on how his hold game is so great. During Wimbledon 14/15, he went to a mode I hadn't seen him go before. Consistent holds after holds. And the same in many big matches since 2014.
I will take clay out of the game as it's hard to hold the serve for most players there, except Nadal and maybe servebots.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slam H2H before 2013: 6-5

After 2013 / racket change/movement decline: 0-4

I wonder what the difference was.

Decline is you opinion, he improved his results against the field.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

It is absolutely ridiculous why some Djoker fans completely ignore the age aspect.

Just because Fed is able to beat the next gen and lost gen, which in general has been the worst for several decades, they absolutely disregard Federer's age

He is 37 years and 3 months. He is a full generation older to Djokovic.

Yes, "just because".

WI15 6-0
UO15 6-0
YEC 4-0
AO16 6-0
injury
AO17 7-0
WI17 7-0

Sets: 97-10

wins over top10: 13


Finals against Djokovic: 0-4

Sets: 3-11

Fed had godly results in a 10 years more modern era than his supposed peak.

 

[KINGROGER]

Decline is you opinion, he improved his results against the field.

His results vs field were worse than 2004-2006 and so were his results vs Djokovic.

His FH declining from pre 2013 levels is a fact of life.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes, "just because".

WI15 6-0
UO15 6-0
YEC 4-0
AO16 6-0
injury
AO17 7-0
WI17 7-0

Sets: 97-10

wins over top10: 13


Finals against Djokovic: 0-4

Sets: 3-11

Fed had godly results in a 10 years more modern era than his supposed peak.

0-4 is godly?

 

[axlrose]

Hard to believe such a technique-oriented thread has immediately become another My dad is stronger than your dad.

 

[mika1979]

Yes, "just because".

WI15 6-0
UO15 6-0
YEC 4-0
AO16 6-0
injury
AO17 7-0
WI17 7-0

Sets: 97-10

wins over top10: 13


Finals against Djokovic: 0-4

Sets: 3-11

Fed had godly results in a 10 years more modern era than his supposed peak.

You are arguing against morons, and that's a waste of time. They are just trying to **** you off, all these guys are just bitter because they know Djokovic's best is the best

 

[airchallenge2]

The players who could unsettle Djokovic:

1. Nadal on clay and on a good day on the other surfaces too. On clay he is nearly unbeatable when playing well, no matter what Djokovic or anyone for that matter does. On the other surfaces, on a very good day, Nadal can beat Djokovic through physicality and dominating with his FH, especially DTL. Ona day when Nadal is feeling the DTL FH, Novak is in big trouble. It was a miracle he escaped at Wimb this year.

2. Pre-2013 Federer. In other words a Federer who is not too old to compete with Novak in BO5. He can use his slice and variety to unsettle Novak and also dominate with his FH. Like in Nadal's case, if Fed's FH is firing, Novak is in big trouble.

3. Wawrinka. If Wawrinka is feeling it, he can hit Djokovic off the court with his heavy shots off both wings. If Djokovic is in his defensive mode, he will get exposed by Stan's power. There is not a particular wing that Novak could try to neutralize because Stan hits big and deep off both wings. Stan is the one opponent Novak can't afford to play defensively against.

Just my 2 cents. Only these 3 guys can beat a well-playing Novak IMO.

Very good 2 cents. It shows it can be done, even though the H2H says it's not easy at all.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Except Laver didn't win any slams after 31 and neither did Connors.

Heck, Connors lost the last 17 matches against the younger Lendl after he turned 32 or so.

Admittedly, that was a very strong counterpoint!

 

[moonballs]

I like the analysis in the OP about Wardlaw and how Djokovic can violate it almost at will to gain advantage. I don’t think the reason is that he knows something while others don’t. Nadal knows it too and often hit big down the line forehands. Rather it is he can pull it off better than others. So the question we should be asking is why he is capable of doing this better than anyone else.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I like the analysis in the OP about Wardlaw and how Djokovic can violate it almost at will to gain advantage. I don’t think the reason is that he knows something while others don’t. Nadal knows it too and often hit big down the line forehands. Rather it is he can pull it off better than others. So the question we should be asking is why he is capable of doing this better than anyone else.

To your question, perhaps it's a combination of: quickness and anticipation to get into position, exquisite timing, not too many moving parts in his strokes, so that they don't break down as often as others' might. Of course, all pros have all these attributes to some degree, but Novak may have the best combination of these elements.

 

[mike danny]

Admittedly, that was a very strong counterpoint!

It wasn't that much as those players didn't do much after 31-32.