Djoker match provided with more opportunities to come to the net. RBA should have done it more too.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
Also, all the talk of prolonged baseline rallies in the RBA/Djokovic match thread quieted down when Fed was doing it
Discuss
Funny how that grass sped up today isn't it?
On account of Nadal's better defensive game, wouldn't it be a better idea for Fed to come in more?Are you seriously comparing RBA's defensive game to Nadal's?
What are you even trying to say?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.
You force your opponent into a strategy that allows them to win 80% of the points?!RBA forced Djokovic to the net, because that's where he's weakest. .
No. What are you even trying to say with this thread?What are you even trying to say?
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 gameNo. 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.
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)
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
You force your opponent into a strategy that allows them to win 80% of the points?!
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
At least in this post you tell what your idea was.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
The tone of the posts from Fed fans towards baseline rallies was entirely different in the two match threadsThat is the problem with the lies. Once you tell them there is no coming back.
The tone of the posts from Fed fans towards baseline rallies was entirely different in the two match threads
To be fair, the rallies were very different in those two matches. I do get what you are saying, but the Fedal rallies were more aggressive in style.The tone of the posts from Fed fans towards baseline rallies was entirely different in the two match threads
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.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.
Rafa knows better.I wish that just once we saw a match between those two on grass like in Halle.
Funny how that grass sped up today isn't it?
Short, sweet and right.RBA's passing was poor. Nadal's was excellent. Hence the disparity.
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.)
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.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 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.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
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)
Stupid thread.
Rafa, best passing shot in history.
RBA, couldn’t pass my grandmother, and she’s dead (RIP Grams).
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.
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?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?
Are you saying that one of TTW’S favorite memes, that Nole never goes to the net, may not be true?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?
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?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?
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 .
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? Your OP points out that Federer and Nadal played 20+ more points, and yet Djokovic and RBA ran... 7809.6m compared to... 6040.8.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
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.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?
@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%).