Djokovic approached the net more often than Federer today (24% vs 14%)

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic: 53 net points / 221 total points (24%)
Federer: 33 net points / 243 total points (14%)




Also, all the talk of prolonged baseline rallies in the RBA/Djokovic match thread quieted down when Fed was doing it

Discuss :cool:
Djoker match provided with more opportunities to come to the net. RBA should have done it more too.

Courts look fine... now. :p
 
Also, all the talk of prolonged baseline rallies in the RBA/Djokovic match thread quieted down when Fed was doing it

Discuss :cool:
Lel, this one is obvious: Djovack rallied with RBA cause he wanted to, could've been approaching on every other point as RBA's passes were not outstanding. Fedr *had* to rally with RAFA to win, Nadal would eat net rushes up as usual.

Noel is good at net at the moment though, promising signs.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Are you seriously comparing RBA's defensive game to Nadal's?
On account of Nadal's better defensive game, wouldn't it be a better idea for Fed to come in more?

Instead Fed was pretty content with rallying from the baseline with Rafa (and winning most of the longer rallies, too)
 
RBA forced Djokovic to the net, because that's where he's weakest. Nadal tried to stop Federer getting to the net.

One long baseline rally isn't automatically the same as the other as well.

Djokovic and RBA was a far more methodical wait-and-see type of rally. Fed and Nadal, even in the 20+ rally moments they were trying to hit winners 80% of the time, the quality was just so high between them.
 

augustobt

Legend
Hahahahah this is so absurd, I didn't expected that from jm1980.

I can't possibly begin you're using this stat as anything, as if they were minimally meaningful in this debate you're trying to point out.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Hahahahah this is so absurd, I didn't expected that from jm1980.

I can't possibly begin you're using this stat as anything, as if they were minimally meaningful in this debate you're trying to point out.
What are you even trying to say?
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
No. What are you even trying to say with this thread?
Because there's nothing to compare or discuss about this fact beyond the obvious: one played Bautista and other played Nadal.
Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal, and win the entire match on the back of his baseline game
 
Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal, and win the entire match on the back of his baseline game
That is the problem with the lies. Once you tell them there is no coming back.

:cool:
 
You force your opponent into a strategy that allows them to win 80% of the points?!
The points aren't exclusively one thing or the other, the point is about how many of the points there are. Djokovic still winning the points isn't really a shock because he's a fantastic player.

If a rally is going 15 shots deep and Djokovic is starting to pull you from side to side, controlling it, he's winning that point the vast majority of the time. If you're RBA and you drop a slice short to bring him forward, you're still second favourite, but you'll get a chance to hit a winner.
 

augustobt

Legend
Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal
But that's a totally different thing. I mean, you're simply not considering anything about tennis tactics, like at all, if you're even minimally serious in bringing this comparison.

One thing is pulling up a strategy against Nadal, and what those numbers means. And another thing is what it means against Bautista-Agut, who's game is obviously completely different in a lot of different ways to Nadal's. Like, for example, checking with those same stats that Bautista-Agut had twice the number of net approaches than Nadal.

Bringing those numbers as if they mean something is downright dishonesty, hahahahaha.

Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal, and win the entire match on the back of his baseline game
At least in this post you tell what your idea was.
 
The tone of the posts from Fed fans towards baseline rallies was entirely different in the two match threads
You transcend communication media. Not only truth doesn't matter, but you are able to discern the magnitude of the emotional undertones regardless of the context. For example, in the situation where the win clearly carries positive emotional vibes that need to wear off before the normal service resumes, you are able to discern to what extent the predominant satisfaction is borne out of simple enjoyment of what just happened, and to what from Federer being able to win exactly via ways we are criticising. I wonder, for example, how do you know that the people are not marvelling at Federer beating Nadal in his own game (of baseline rallying) which in itself would mean that they are not forgetting anything that is being said?

:cool:
 

augustobt

Legend
Federer being able to win exactly via ways we are criticising.
And most exactly under opponent's main strength, something almost impossible to think that Federer would've done under those court conditions. That, as a known fact, is something that helps Nadal a lot. Fed at almost 38yo against a (self-described) healthy and confident Nadal and pulled a magic trick out of a downright suicidal gameplan.
 
And most exactly under opponent's main strength, something almost impossible to think that Federer would've done under those court conditions. That, as a known fact, is something that helps Nadal a lot. Fed at almost 38yo against a (self-described) healthy and confident Nadal and pulled a magic trick out of a downright suicidal gameplan.
I wish that just once we saw a match between those two on grass like in Halle.

:happydevil:
 

MS_07

Rookie
Funny how that grass sped up today isn't it? ;)

Ned / djoke are changing their games / playing shorter points / coming to net now . they've exhausted their fuel by running like dogs on court . if they wanted to play more they need to use wisely what is left . same with fed .

but thing is, you can do that against RBA , not against rafa .

fed understood this at the end of second and got mentally prepared to get dirty and going toe to toe with Ned in rallies and came up triumphant . surely he can't do it more than 2/3 sets at this age but it was enough today / also in AUS'17 .

it's not about fast / slow courts , it's about finding the right tactic to cross the line that day .
 
A few points:

  • Coming to net a few times and it being a herbacious Miami aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
  • Not all baseline rallies are created equal. At their most grindy, Fedal would hit 25 nuclear bombs in aggressive baseline swashbuckling (which actually advertizes the conditions as difficult to penetrate well enough anyway), while RBA and Djoker at their most grindy would hit 40 cross court backhands. Deep, neutralizing cross court backhands, but none with the intention of even trying to beat the conditions (there were, of course, aggressive shots in that match also, for the record).
  • I saw plenty of disdain for the speed of the courts while Nadal was consistently able to reach balls he shouldn't have even been in the same postcode as by the time they bounced twice. The same could also be said of Roger on a few occasions.
  • If you work points for longer, I imagine there's actually more chance for a coughed-up/shanked airball or short ball to finish at net with. That might be what you're waiting for after all.
  • RBA's passing was actually very poor and he shat the bed multiple times, dumping simple opportunities into the net. Novak should have come in more, especially as he was pretty good at net.
  • If you would be one to consider net rushing a decent amount vs Nadal on these courts, you're a braver man than I.
 
I also can't believe Fed made less UEs than Djoker, in more points played. However, Djoker and RBA had longer neutral rallies on average (a guess), and Djoker concentrated a ton of errors in Set 2. He then proceeded to remember who he was, and was henceforth in a different class. Funnily enough, it was also Fed's second set which was an disaster (an scandal etc. etc.)
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
Ridiculous thread and conclusion. Federer couldn’t approach the net willy nilly, he has far too much respect for Rafa to do that. He had to pick his moments and the balls to attack to come into net and finish points he would win at net.
 
Last edited:
A few points:

  • Coming to net a few times and it being a herbacious Miami aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
  • Not all baseline rallies are created equal. At their most grindy, Fedal would hit 25 nuclear bombs in aggressive baseline swashbuckling (which actually advertizes the conditions as difficult to penetrate well enough anyway), while RBA and Djoker at their most grindy would hit 40 cross court backhands. Deep, neutralizing cross court backhands, but none with the intention of even trying to beat the conditions (there were, of course, aggressive shots in that match also, for the record).
  • I saw plenty of disdain for the speed of the courts while Nadal was consistently able to reach balls he shouldn't have even been in the same postcode as by the time they bounced twice. The same could also be said of Roger on a few occasions.
  • If you work points for longer, I imagine there's actually more chance for a coughed-up/shanked airball or short ball to finish at net with. That might be what you're waiting for after all.
  • RBA's passing was actually very poor and he shat the bed multiple times, dumping simple opportunities into the net. Novak should have come in more, especially as he was pretty good at net.
  • If you would be one to consider net rushing a decent amount vs Nadal on these courts, you're a braver man than I.
(y)(y)(y)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I also can't believe Fed made less UEs than Djoker, in more points played. However, Djoker and RBA had longer neutral rallies on average (a guess), and Djoker concentrated a ton of errors in Set 2. He then proceeded to remember who he was, and was henceforth in a different class. Funnily enough, it was also Fed's second set which was an disaster (an scandal etc. etc.)
:-D:-D
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal, and win the entire match on the back of his baseline game
Look, I don’t dismiss what you’re saying. But there’s a world of difference between many of the rallies in that first semi and those in the second.

Think there was a 20-odd shot rally that was full of pushing. Two guys literally standing in the same spot knocking the ball to each other. I’m not trolling here, just watch the point, it’s an undeniable push fest until Novak gets fed up and pulls the trigger (if I recall it correctly).
In the Fedal semi, many of the rallies featured Nadal trying to stay alive as Fed went on the attack. I think it’s understandable that Fed would be wary of getting passed by Nadal if he came in too much.

That said, it’s clear as day that Novak is developing his game for Wimbledon, coming in more etc. Interesting for him because it’s not his natural game and I still feel that Fed wouldn’t want to rally with him too much.
 

maupp

Semi-Pro
Well, there is plenty to discuss. Let's start with the complaints from Fed fans in the RBA/Djokovic match thread that the match was full of endless baseline rallies, bemoaning the "death" of grass court tennis. Only for that sentiment to disappear once Fed started winning his own baseline rallies against Nadal, and win the entire match on the back of his baseline game
I wouldn't bother if I were you. These lots a hypocrites and are shameless about it. They constantly change narrative depending on what suit them.

Like you said things like grass speed or endless rallies change according to what suit them. They spent the entire tournament lamenting about grass speed etc, after the Djokovic RBA match they claim this wasn't grass tennis anymore yet after Federer manages to beat Nadal they are now all up in arms claiming that Federer gave a clinic in grass tennis, suddenly endless rallies was a masterpiece to watch from Federer and now they are coming with all sort of twisted logic to explain why rallying endlessly was better than net rushing.

Like I said I wouldn't bother if I were you. Notice how talks of court speed has died down a bit since the Federer match ended yet we know they'd be at least 10 threads about court speed had he lost. Heck after the Djokovic Bautista match they were already plenty of threads and posts going on about slow courts, endless rallies and death of grass. Federer managed to excel in those "conditions" while playing endless rallies and not a word of complaints about long rallies or slow court has been uttered.

It's actually funny
 

JackGates

Legend
Djokovic: 53 net points / 221 total points (24%)
Federer: 33 net points / 243 total points (14%)




Also, all the talk of prolonged baseline rallies in the RBA/Djokovic match thread quieted down when Fed was doing it

Discuss :cool:
I think it's not fair to compare it with Nadal. Nadal is terrible matchup for Fed and both are goats, so the matchup is totally unique and special, all rules don't apply. Plus Nadal is a lot better than Agut and his style is totally different.

Plus, it also matters when you approach the net. Djokovic does it when the point is already over, he doesn't have to hit tough volleys.

All this stat proves is that Djokovic approaches the net with easier volleys and he had an easier opponent, not that his volleys are superior.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
On account of Nadal's better defensive game, wouldn't it be a better idea for Fed to come in more?

Instead Fed was pretty content with rallying from the baseline with Rafa (and winning most of the longer rallies, too)
Better defensive game = better passing shots. That's why he didn't come in as often as Djokovic did against RBA.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Stupid thread.

Rafa, best passing shot in history.

RBA, couldn’t pass my grandmother, and she’s dead (RIP Grams:cry:).

Seriously, the guy netted every single passing-shot v. Novak.
But that's a totally different thing. I mean, you're simply not considering anything about tennis tactics, like at all, if you're even minimally serious in bringing this comparison.

One thing is pulling up a strategy against Nadal, and what those numbers means. And another thing is what it means against Bautista-Agut, who's game is obviously completely different in a lot of different ways to Nadal's. Like, for example, checking with those same stats that Bautista-Agut had twice the number of net approaches than Nadal.

Bringing those numbers as if they mean something is downright dishonesty, hahahahaha.


At least in this post you tell what your idea was.
I think it's not fair to compare it with Nadal. Nadal is terrible matchup for Fed and both are goats, so the matchup is totally unique and special, all rules don't apply. Plus Nadal is a lot better than Agut and his style is totally different.

Plus, it also matters when you approach the net. Djokovic does it when the point is already over, he doesn't have to hit tough volleys.

All this stat proves is that Djokovic approaches the net with easier volleys and he had an easier opponent, not that his volleys are superior.
Ridiculous thread and conclusion. Federer couldn’t approach the net willy nilly, he has far too much respect for Rafa to do that. He had to pick his moments and the balls to attack to come into net and finish points he would win at net.
RBA's passing was poor. Nadal's was excellent. Hence the disparity.
What if I told you all that even if you look at the entire tournament, this still holds true? That Djokovic has approached the net more often than Fed has in 2019 Wimbledon?
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
What if I told you all that even if you look at the entire tournament, this still holds true? That Djokovic has approached the net more often than Fed has in 2019 Wimbledon?
Well that’s a different thread isn’t it. Suddenly we’re actually comparing Fed to Djokovic instead of Nadal and RBA.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
What if I told you all that even if you look at the entire tournament, this still holds true? That Djokovic has approached the net more often than Fed has in 2019 Wimbledon?
Well that would mean it only took Nole 15 seasons to accomplish this. Amazing feat indeed.
 

mr tonyz

Professional
Does anyone have the #s for the average rally length in the FeDal final?

I feel like it's in the 8+ category for the match .
 

JackGates

Legend
What if I told you all that even if you look at the entire tournament, this still holds true? That Djokovic has approached the net more often than Fed has in 2019 Wimbledon?
It means Fed has just chosen a different tactic, doesn't mean Djokovic is better at the net. And why does it matter who is better at the net anyway, in this era you don't have to be great at the net. But, we can say Nole is improving his net game. Also, I never claimed Djokovic was terrible at the net, just not close to the level of Federer. So, jimmy, what's the problem?
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Does anyone have the #s for the average rally length in the FeDal final?

I feel like it's in the 8+ category for the match .
I seriously doubt it - that's an insane number. I saw some people post the shot breakdown and it looked high, but not that high. I know for a fact they both came to the match with under 3,5 shots per rally.
 

ibbi

Legend
Djokovic: 53 net points / 221 total points (24%)
Federer: 33 net points / 243 total points (14%)




Also, all the talk of prolonged baseline rallies in the RBA/Djokovic match thread quieted down when Fed was doing it

Discuss :cool:
There were some prolonged baseline rallies in the Federer-Nadal match, but nothing compared to the Djokovic-Bautista Agut match. I mean you've posted the match stats there, but I see you've conveniently left out the distance covered stat from the bottom? :unsure: Your OP points out that Federer and Nadal played 20+ more points, and yet Djokovic and RBA ran... 7809.6m compared to... 6040.8.

Anyway, I'd wager the amount that each man came to the net had at least something to do with who each man was playing, wouldn't you say? Switch Roger and Novak's opponents, and I'm not sure that stat would quite be the same.
 
You transcend communication media. Not only truth doesn't matter, but you are able to discern the magnitude of the emotional undertones regardless of the context. For example, in the situation where the win clearly carries positive emotional vibes that need to wear off before the normal service resumes, you are able to discern to what extent the predominant satisfaction is borne out of simple enjoyment of what just happened, and to what from Federer being able to win exactly via ways we are criticising. I wonder, for example, how do you know that the people are not marvelling at Federer beating Nadal in his own game (of baseline rallying) which in itself would mean that they are not forgetting anything that is being said?

:cool:
There is a severe tendency on here for people to be so close minded as to not even be able to understand the thing they are close minded on.

Different points and arguments have different contexts.

Of course Federer beating Rafa while spending most of his time on the baseline is something worth noting positively in his favour given his own personal history at Wimbledon, Nadal’s history, and their shared history.

This does not negate me from criticising X player from doing the same thing, based on those particular circumstances. This comes with being a tennis/sports fan in general and how people can’t grasp the differing parallels and context with each match and player is baffling.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
@falstaff78 produced stats the other day where it shows from R3 to the final, Novak has approached the net more (17% vs 15%) than Federer and has better win percentage up there (79% vs 77%).
 
Top