Djokovic 2019 AO F vs Federer 2004 USO F - The stats comparison!

[Nadal_Django]

I did a little comparison between 2 Goat performances in the last 20 years on Hard Court.

Opponents:
2019 AO- Nadal
2004 USO - Hewitt

W/UE
Djokovic 2019 AO: 34 W/ 9 UE
Federer USO 2004: 38 W/ 29 UE

Dominance ratio:
Djokovic 2019 AO: DR 2.40
Federer USO 2004: DR 1.64

Serve Statistics:
Djokovic 2019 AO: First Serve In-72.5%; First Serve Won-80.0%; Second Serve Won-84.2%; BP saved-1/1; no lost serve;
Federer USO 2004: First Serve In-55.1% ; First Serve Won-77.6% ; Second Serve Won-55.0%; BP saved-5/6; lost serve once;

 

[Lew II]

Stats of a match are not enough to tell the level of play.

I like the "distance run" stat. It takes into account something more than just hitting.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Stats of a match are not enough to tell the level of play.

I like the "distance run" stat. It takes into account something more than just hitting.

But don't you think that the Federer performance against Hewitt is somewhat overrated due to the Nostalgia Bias. The stats are certainly suggesting that.

 

[Eren]

Federer was prone to UEs even then. I'd like to say that Federer's more attacking play was responsible for that, but I have no way of being sure.

Unfortunately, we can't really compare Nadal's performance vs. Hewitt's either. I know you were trolling with "Nadal is playing at peak level" but I am not buying that lol.

I'd like to see who played the longer rallies on average as well. We should also look at how many UEs Nadal made and how many Hewitt made as well.

Surfaces are too different to compare too. There are more GOAT performances in Slam final HC matches I think (don't know them off the top of my head though).

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Hewitt > Nadal

 

[Nadal_Django]

Federer was prone to UEs even then. I'd like to say that Federer's more attacking play was responsible for that, but I have no way of being sure.

Unfortunately, we can't really compare Nadal's performance vs. Hewitt's either. I know you were trolling with "Nadal is playing at peak level" but I am not buying that lol.

I'd like to see who played the longer rallies on average as well. We should also look at how many UEs Nadal made and how many Hewitt made as well.

Surfaces are too different to compare too. There are more GOAT performances in Slam final HC matches I think (don't know them off the top of my head though).

Nadal 2019 AO: 20 W/ 28 UE
Hewitt USO 2004: 10 W/ 29 UE

 

[Towny]

Both incredibly dominant performances. I would note that Fed actually did better on the return:

Return win percentage:
Djokovic 45.2%
Federer 53.3%

Break points on opponent's serve won:
Djokovic 5/8
Federer 7/13

Looking at overall results, Djokovic had the advantage in terms of overall points won
Djokovic 89/142 (63%)
Federer 100/164 (61%)

But Fed had the advantage in terms of overall games

Djokovic 18/26 (69%)
Federer 19/25 (76%)

Both opponents were lacklustre in spite of great runs to the finals. Both Djokovic and Federer very dominant but stats can't tell the whole story. From watching both, I would say Djokovic was cleaner and had fewer lapses, but Federer hit the higher heights

 

[Eren]

Nadal 2019 AO: 20 W/ 28 UE
Hewitt USO 2004: 10 W/ 29 UE

Thank you.

Both played bad, that's for sure. Hmmm, I am going to search for stats tomorrow myself to see what interesting stuff we can find.

1st serves in :
Federer : 49/85 (55%)
Hewitt : 41/75 (55%)

Winning% on 1st serve:
Federer: 38/49 (78%)
Hewitt : 23/41 (56%)

Winning% on 2nd serve:
Federer: 22/40 (55%)
Hewitt : 12/34 (35%)

Aces:
Federer : 11, Hewitt : 1

DFs:
Federer: 1, Hewitt : 5

This one might be interesting as well, Fed's serves were better placed than Hewitt's given that they both had 55% first serve in and Hewitt hit only one ace and Federer 11.

Net points:
Federer: 30/34 (88.24%)
Hewitt : 12/20 (60%)

 

[NoleFam]

Neither Nadal nor Hewitt were what I would call impressive but Hewitt's serve speeds were slower than Nadal's. His second serve especially, even more so on the ad side, was just too slow for that level of a match and got demolished by Federer. Djokovic and Nadal's serve speeds were pretty close on the first and second, both averaging in the high 90s on the second, but Djokovic's 1st serve percentage was higher.

Ironically, Nadal won more points on his second serve than his first serve. One of the commentators pointed out that the pace did not bother Djokovic at all and he was returning the ball so fast that Nadal did not have enough time to recover and hit a great next shot. He got burned so much off his 1st serve because he was so close to the baseline and the return was coming back so fast right at his feet. If anybody wants to see the official stats for the USO match, they are here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040927093845/http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day20/1701ms.html

 

[Sport]

I don't remember Federer match so I don't comment on him.

But I did see the Nadal-Djokovic match. Djokovic was in imperial form regardless of Nadal's level. Yes, Nadal looked slow and lack of rhytm. But Djokovic was hitting the ball so hard, he was crushing the lines.

 

[Lew II]

But don't you think that the Federer performance against Hewitt is somewhat overrated due to the Nostalgia Bias. The stats are certainly suggesting that.

I don't know. Fed dominated the match.

By the way Hewitt was a player objectively limited by his height, he just couldn't push Fed to great heights.

 

[tennis_pro]

20 more unforced errors but lost 6 games in the entire match instead of 8. How's that possible, op?

 

[TheIntrovert]

I did a little comparison between 2 Goat performances in the last 20 years on Hard Court.

Opponents:
2019 AO- Nadal
2004 USO - Hewitt

W/UE
Djokovic 2019 AO: 34 W/ 9 UE
Federer USO 2004: 38 W/ 29 UE

Dominance ratio:
Djokovic 2019 AO: DR 2.40
Federer USO 2004: DR 1.64

Serve Statistics:
Djokovic 2019 AO: First Serve In-72.5%; First Serve Won-80.0%; Second Serve Won-84.2%; BP saved-1/1; no lost serve;
Federer USO 2004: First Serve In-55.1% ; First Serve Won-77.6% ; Second Serve Won-55.0%; BP saved-5/6; lost serve once;

Stats of a match are not enough to tell the level of play.

I like the "distance run" stat. It takes into account something more than just hitting.

When the guy you’ve devoted your existence on this forum to and your master disagrees with you

 

[junior74]

I don't remember Federer match so I don't comment on him.

But I did see the Nadal-Djokovic match. Djokovic was in imperial form regardless of Nadal's level. Yes, Nadal looked slow and lack of rhytm. But Djokovic was hitting the ball so hard, he was crushing the lines.

Djokovic played a very tidy match, no doubt. But Rafa was also a little terrible. I can't see any point in making this sort of comparison, unless it's another strange attempt to "prove" something, which seems to be the eternal TT zeitgeist

 

[Nadal_Django]

When the guy you’ve devoted your existence on this forum to and your master disagrees with you

WTF are you babbling about. Lol

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Federer made a lot of errors in the second set. Hewitt actually ended up with a higher % of return points won in that set despite losing the tiebreak. Federer clearly loses that set in this comparison. The first and third sets were as clean as Djokovic's, however. In my opinion, top groundstroke quality was higher on Federer's side (ridiculous forehands), so he'd be poised to win those two sets and go 2-1 up.

 

[TheAssassin]

Both of the defeated finalists got there without dropping a set. Brutal reality checks followed.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Both of the defeated finalists got there without dropping a set. Brutal reality checks followed.

Two classic cases of a soft draw masking weaknesses only for an on-fire opponent to expose them mercilessly in the end.

 

[Eren]

Both of the defeated finalists got there without dropping a set. Brutal reality checks followed.

What makes it worse is that both of them were 1-time champions in the events and both won their trophies against GOAT candidates on the surface (Federer for Nadal and Sampras for Hewitt). So by no means were any of them mugs.

 

[mr tonyz]

Stats of a match are not enough to tell the level of play.

I like the "distance run" stat. It takes into account something more than just hitting.

Distance run isn't the best stat for determining level of play . You'd need shot trajectory (flat , loopy , high rpm , low rpm , weight . A ball can land on the same spot of the court as another with a totally different path to get to that spot for example), depth , spin , pace , accuracy , consistency . Basically a full computer mapping of the entire match for actual level of play

For instance it's often easier to track down a ball if you're already leaning that way despite the fact that it's half the court away from you vs having to hit a shot from your shoelaces that's wrong-footing
you from 50 cmm away from you on the opposite side of where you're already leaning/guessing . So distance run isn't always the most accurate.

 

[Lew II]

Distance run isn't the best stat for determining level of play . You'd need shot trajectory , depth , spin , pace , accuracy , consistency . Basically a full computer mapping of the entire match for actual level of play

For instance it's often easier to track down a ball if you're already leaning that way despite the fact that it's half the court away from you vs having to hit a shot from your shoelaces that's wrong-footing
you from 50 cmm away from you on the opposite side of where you're already leaning/guessing . So distance run isn't always the most accurate.

I didn't mean 'distance run' alone.

 

[VaporDude95]

Two classic cases of a soft draw masking weaknesses only for an on-fire opponent to expose them mercilessly in the end.

I was saying this allllll throughout the AO 2019 and Nadal fans didn’t want to believe it.

I mean, they were collectively orgasming when Nadal beat Tiafoe lol

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

By the way, a note for any aspiring analysts: as much as it is instructive to check TA charts, basic W-UE stats should be used carefully in cross-comparisons, because the standards are not perfectly consistent between different stat collectors. Even official stats are sometimes inconsistent between tournaments, or between different editions of the same tournament (looking at you, Wimbledon).

 

[Sport]

Both of the defeated finalists got there without dropping a set. Brutal reality checks followed.

Two classic cases of a soft draw masking weaknesses only for an on-fire opponent to expose them mercilessly in the end.

Both Nadal and Djokovic had an extremelly easy draw before the AO final, which made it difficult to predict their level before the final.

Djokovic lost a set to Medvedev, not because Medvedev was playing incredible (Medvedev is a pusher and not better than Tsitsipas), but because Djokovic was playing at 50% of his level and saving energy. Djokovic raised his level in the SF and the final.

 

[Sport]

I was saying this allllll throughout the AO 2019 and Nadal fans didn’t want to believe it.

I mean, the we’re collectively orgasming when Nadal beat Tiafoe lol

"Collectively orgasming", only those words to refer to Nadal fans indicate you are a fanatic and a Nadal hater.

Yes, Nadal beat Tiafoe in the QF. But who did Djokovic defeat in the QF? Nishikori got injured and didn't even play more than one set. Both Nadal and Djokovic had an easy draw, so it was not easy to predict their real level before the final.

 

[King No1e]

I did a little comparison between 2 Goat performances in the last 20 years on Hard Court.

Opponents:
2019 AO- Nadal
2004 USO - Hewitt

W/UE
Djokovic 2019 AO: 34 W/ 9 UE
Federer USO 2004: 38 W/ 29 UE

Dominance ratio:
Djokovic 2019 AO: DR 2.40
Federer USO 2004: DR 1.64

Serve Statistics:
Djokovic 2019 AO: First Serve In-72.5%; First Serve Won-80.0%; Second Serve Won-84.2%; BP saved-1/1; no lost serve;
Federer USO 2004: First Serve In-55.1% ; First Serve Won-77.6% ; Second Serve Won-55.0%; BP saved-5/6; lost serve once;

Djokovic wins this by a mile and a half. Handed Nadal his first straight-set final loss. That match is going down in history as one of the greatest final performances in history.

I thought his sublime SF performance was his greatest ever, and just a two days later he blows it out of the water. AO GOAT.

 

[Sport]

What makes it worse is that both of them were 1-time champions in the events and both won their trophies against GOAT candidates on the surface (Federer for Nadal and Sampras for Hewitt). So by no means were any of them mugs.

Nadal is an all-time great, unlike Hewitt. I can understand a clarification of why Hewitt is not a mug. No clarification was needed for Nadal.

 

[MeatTornado]

Both Nadal and Djokovic had an extremelly easy draw before the AO final, which made it difficult to predict their level before the final.

Djokovic lost a set to Medvedev, not because Medvedev was playing incredible (Medvedev is a pusher and not better than Tsitsipas), but because Djokovic was playing at 50% of his level and saving energy. Djokovic raised his level in the SF and the final.

Same against Shapovalov. He was sleepwalking but still raced out to a 2-0 lead. When Shapo stole that 3rd set, it woke Novak up and we got a glimpse of what was to come in the SF/F.

 

[lud]

And we wonder why Fed is owned by Rafa/Novak.
Even in his demolition mode, he made 29 UE.
Hewitt isn't player who can punish this errors, but Rafa,Novak and Murray ocassionally can.

 

[upchuck]

Nadal 2019 AO: 20 W/ 28 UE
Hewitt USO 2004: 10 W/ 29 UE

Next they'll tell you Hewitt attacked more.

20 more unforced errors but lost 6 games in the entire match instead of 8. How's that possible, op?

Hewitt had a bad serving day. Made just 55% first serves compared to Nadal who made 64% first serves. The only time Hewitt had a near-decent first serve percentage was the second set (61%) and, tellingly, that was the only competitive set of the match.

Djokovic lost a set to Medvedev, not because Medvedev was playing incredible (Medvedev is a pusher and not better than Tsitsipas), but because Djokovic was playing at 50% of his level and saving energy. Djokovic raised his level in the SF and the final.

Medvedev played exceptionally well and Djokovic raised his level considerably for that match. The set loss was unnecessary, but it was the match when he finally started to play well in that tournament. Being a pusher ≠ ineffective.

 

[Sport]

Next they'll tell you Hewitt attacked more.
Hewitt had a bad serving day. Made just 55% first serves compared to Nadal who made 64% first serves. The only time Hewitt had a near-decent first serve percentage was the second set (61%) and, tellingly, that was the only competitive set of the match.
Medvedev played exceptionally well and Djokovic raised his level considerably for that match. The set loss was unnecessary, but it was the match when he finally started to play well in that tournament. Being a pusher ≠ ineffective.

Djokovic was playing like a pusher against Medvedev, saving energy and with little effort. Against Pouille and Nadal Djokovic was more aggresive, hitting the lines with deeper shots. Medvedev did nothing especial but pushing the ball, Djokovic was clearly playing at 50% of his level.

Reading your comment, you make it look like Medvedev won one set against Djokovic when Djokovic was playing at the same level than in the final, which is clearly not the case. Medvedev would have maybe lost to Federer and Tsitsipas and definetely would have lost to Nadal.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I did a little comparison between 2 Goat performances in the last 20 years on Hard Court.

Opponents:
2019 AO- Nadal
2004 USO - Hewitt

W/UE
Djokovic 2019 AO: 34 W/ 9 UE
Federer USO 2004: 38 W/ 29 UE

Dominance ratio:
Djokovic 2019 AO: DR 2.40
Federer USO 2004: DR 1.64

Serve Statistics:
Djokovic 2019 AO: First Serve In-72.5%; First Serve Won-80.0%; Second Serve Won-84.2%; BP saved-1/1; no lost serve;
Federer USO 2004: First Serve In-55.1% ; First Serve Won-77.6% ; Second Serve Won-55.0%; BP saved-5/6; lost serve once;

Great stuff.
So what about a comparison to Nadal’s 2008 FO against Rogi?

 

[Nadal_Django]

Next they'll tell you Hewitt attacked more.
Hewitt had a bad serving day. Made just 55% first serves compared to Nadal who made 64% first serves. The only time Hewitt had a near-decent first serve percentage was the second set (61%) and, tellingly, that was the only competitive set of the match.
Medvedev played exceptionally well and Djokovic raised his level considerably for that match. The set loss was unnecessary, but it was the match when he finally started to play well in that tournament. Being a pusher ≠ ineffective.

Medvedev-Djokovic was one of the highest level matches for the whole AO tournament. Maybe it wasn't the prettiest match, but for sure was very high level indeed.

 

[upchuck]

Djokovic was playing like a pusher against Medvedev, saving energy and with little effort.

He played the way he could play against a guy who gets everything back, has a good serve, makes few errors and gives little to pounce on. I had Djokovic on upset alert heading into that Medvedev match, so trust me when I say he raised his level considerably. Medvedev is not a flashy player, but he is very, very effective.

Medvedev would have lost to Federer, Tsitsipas and Nadal.

The same Tsitsipas who has lost all three of his matches to Medvedev? The Tsitsipas who has since lost back-to-back matches between the two tournaments he has played since while Medvedev still has a chance of winning his second straight title (up a break in the semis now against Monfils in Rotterdam!)?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

I was saying this allllll throughout the AO 2019 and Nadal fans didn’t want to believe it.

I mean, the we’re collectively orgasming when Nadal beat Tiafoe lol

You, me and hitman possibly belong to that very rare club, whose members were constantly saying that nadal wasn't that good, not been tested all week, 3rd set against birdman was the indication of what can happen against even a slightly better ball striker..
But we all were called haters and anti vamosians

 

[Sport]

He played the way he could play against a guy who gets everything back, has a good serve, makes few errors and gives little to pounce on. I had Djokovic on upset alert heading into that Medvedev match, so trust me when I say he raised his level considerably. Medvedev is not a flashy player, but he is very, very effective.
The same Tsitsipas who has lost all three of his matches to Medvedev? The Tsitsipas who has since lost back-to-back matches between the two tournaments he has played since while Medvedev still has a chance of winning his second straight title (up a break in the semis now against Monfils in Rotterdam!)?

Medvedev got everything back because Djokovic's shots were weak unlike in the semifinal and final. Medvedev didn't have to run at all with Djokovic's weak shots to the centre of the court.

You only had to look at the TV presentators reaction. After the Medvedev match, they said Novak had to increase his level to win the tournament against Nadal. After the Pouille semifinal, they said Nadal was in trouble and Djokovic was the favorite.

There is a reason why Tsitispas is in the top 15 and Medvedev isn't. Sorry, but following your ridiculous logic Medvedev would have defeated Nadal just because he won one set against a subpar Djokovic, which is ridiculous.

 

[upchuck]

Medvedev-Djokovic was one of the highest level matches for the whole AO tournament. Maybe it wasn't the prettiest match, but for sure was very high level indeed.

Many incredibly lengthy rallies that left both players physically drained by the start of the fourth set. Point after point, neither guy would make an error. And it wasn't for the want of trying.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Medvedev got everything back because Djokovic's shots were weak unlike in the semifinal and final. Medvedev didn't have to run at all with Djokovic's weak shots to the middle of the court.

You only had to look at the TV presentators reaction. After the Medvedev match, they said he has to increase his level to win the tournament against Nadal. After the Pouille semifinal, they said Nadal was in trouble.

There is a reason why Tsitispas is in the top 15 and Medvedev isn't. Sorry, but following your ridiculous logic Medvedev would have defeated Nadal just because he won one set against a subpar Djokovic, which is ridiculous.

Djokovic always ups his level for matches against fedal...
The one in Rome 2018 was the best example of it

 

[ForehandRF]

Federer's level in 2004 USO F is overrated because of those 2 bagels he gave to Hewitt.That was his first final in New York.He played better at other editions, including vs Murray in 2008 F.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Federer's level in 2004 USO F is overrated because of those 2 bagels he gave to Hewitt.That was his first final in New York.He played better at other editions, including vs Murray in 2008 F.

But the @ForehandRF was excellent

 

[upchuck]

Medvedev got everything back because Djokovic's shots were weak unlike in the semifinal and final. Medvedev didn't have to run at all with Djokovic's weak shots to the middle of the court.

I give up. If you think Medvedev, who was spent by the third set, didn't have to "run at all" then you didn't watch the match.

You only had to look at the TV presentators reaction. After the Medvedev match, they said he has to increase his level to win the tournament against Nadal. After the Pouille semifinal, they said Nadal was in trouble.

Was he better against Pouille? Sure. But that doesn't mean he was "50%" against Medvedev. As for the TV presenters, they are like you: they look at Medvedev's non-flashy game and assume it takes little to beat him. Not all do: I don't know what you were watching but I remember Patrick McEnroe specifically raving about the "high-quality" match. Here is what Thomas Johansson said when giving his predictions for ESPN:
"Thomas Johansson, 2002 Australian Open champion: 'If you look at their results on the way to the final, Rafa has not been tested yet. I think the match between Novak and Medvedev was a very, very high level, so I think that's good for Novak...'

There is a reason why Tsitispas is in the top 15 and Medvedev isn't. Sorry, but following your ridiculous logic Medvedev would have defeated Nadal just because he won one set against a subpar Djokovic, which is ridiculous.

I don't know how following my logic you could bring Nadal into this.
My logic is Tsitsipas likely would've lost to Medvedev, a player he arguably matches up poorly against. He's had great run of results before, then lost to Medvedev.

 

[Towny]

Great stuff.
So what about a comparison to Nadal’s 2008 FO against Rogi?

W/UE
Nadal RG08 20W/14UE
Djokovic AO19 34W/9UE
Federer USO04 38W/29UE

First serve in:
Nadal 73.8%
Djokovic 72.5%
Federer 55.1%

First serve won:
Nadal 71.1%
Djokovic 80.0%
Federer 77.6%

Second serve won:
Nadal 62.5%
Djokovic 84.2%
Federer 55%

Return points won:
Nadal 59.7%
Djokovic 45.2%
Federer 53.3%

Break point conversion:
Nadal 8/17
Djokovic 5/8
Federer 7/13

Total points won:
Nadal 92/144 (64%)
Djokovic 88/142 (63%)
Federer 100/164 (61%)

Total games won
Nadal 18/22 (82%)
Djokovic 18/26 (69%)
Federer 19/25 (76%)

Insane level beatdown from Nadal. IMO the highest level of the three. Of course, it's difficult to compare due to the surface difference and as ever, stats aren't everything

 

[ForehandRF]

But the @ForehandRF was excellent

Yes, but I think his forehand was even better in the 2005 F vs Agassi.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Watch at 12:23. Mac is very prescient.

 

[Sport]

Many incredibly lengthy rallies that left both players physically drained by the start of the fourth set. Point after point, neither guy would make an error. And it wasn't for the want of trying.

Those rallies were possible because Djokovic's shots were extremelly weak and typically didn't pass the service line. A lot of his shots were in the centre of the court and weak. He was really playing like a pusher. Medvedev was not running to keep the rallies, nor was he doing anything special aparte from pushing the ball.

Against Pouille and Nadal, Djokovic shots were more powerful and deep, he was crushing the lines and changing the direction with power.

Again, following your ridiculous logic, Medvedev (not even top 15) would have defeated Nadal just because he won 1 set against a conservative and subpar version of Djokovic. There is something called level of play. It is utterly simplistic to assume that Djokovic is a robot who plays at the same level every match.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Those rallies were possible because Djokovic's shots were extremelly weak and typically didn't pass the service line. A lot of his shots were in the centre of the court and weak. He was really playing like a pusher. Medvedev was not running to keep the rallies, nor was he doing anything special aparte from pushing the ball.

Against Pouille and Nadal, Djokovic shots were more powerful and deep, he was crushing the lines and changing the direction with power.

I agree that djoker was clobbering the ball in last 2 matches, in particular against nadal

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Yes, but I think his forehand was even better in the 2005 F vs Agassi.

Yes it was
Also considering the fact that agassi was a stunning ball striker

 

[upchuck]

Again, following your ridiculous logic, Medvedev (not even top 15) would have defeated Nadal just because he won 1 set against a conservative and subpar version of Djokovic.

Again, nothing I said could lead you to this conclusion. You are reaching. Hear this: it's possible to believe as I do that Djokovic was greater than 50% against Medvedev AND was better still against Nadal. Regardless, there is a thing called "matchup" and I've seen nothing to indicate Medvedev would've matched up as well against Nadal as Djokovic does or that he would have equaled the level Djokovic did in the final. Stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the other stuff you said, I've shown you the Thomas Johansson quote and said all that could be said. You can believe what you want.

 

[Sport]

Again, nothing I said could lead you to this conclusion. You are reaching. Hear this: it's possible to believe as I do that Djokovic was greater than 50% against Medvedev AND was better still against Nadal. Regardless, there is a thing called "matchup" and I've seen nothing to indicate Medvedev would've matched up as well against Nadal as Djokovic does or that he would have equaled the level Djokovic did in the final. Stop putting words in my mouth.

OK, now I agree.

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer made a lot of errors in the second set. Hewitt actually ended up with a higher % of return points won in that set despite losing the tiebreak. Federer clearly loses that set in this comparison. The first and third sets were as clean as Djokovic's, however. In my opinion, top groundstroke quality was higher on Federer's side (ridiculous forehands), so he'd be poised to win those two sets and go 2-1 up.

Yep, definitely more than half of all U errors Federer made in the 2nd. And some weird errors they were too, quite a few FHs just going into the middle of the net out of the blue. Also, I think some of the shots that would've been winners were wrongly called out for Roger, not sure if that's accounted for in the stats.
The 1st and 3rd sets though, tennis just doesn't get better than that! Federer's FH stole the show (on that fast court, oh my was it a sight to behold), but he was also serving really well, was great at the net. A superb match from Roger. And I agree it's 2-1 as far as quality of groundstrokes in sets goes.