Djokovic- Federer 40-0 Parallel

Berrettini_Fan

Semi-Pro
Much has been said about the two 40-15 matches between the two. But an even more amazing in the summer of 2007. At the Finals of the Canadian Masters, Federer broke Djokovic at 5-5 in the first set and went up 40-0 on his ensuing service game (3 set points). Djokovic somehow broke back, won the tiebreak, and then the match.

At the US Open Finals a month later, it was Djokovic who broke Federer at 5-5 in the first set and went up 40-0 on his ensuing service game (3 set points). Federer somehow broke back, won the tiebreak, and then the match.

What a weird mirror image between those two matches!
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Much has been said about the two 40-15 matches between the two. But an even more amazing in the summer of 2007. At the Finals of the Canadian Masters, Federer broke Djokovic at 5-5 in the first set and went up 40-0 on his ensuing service game (3 set points). Djokovic somehow broke back, won the tiebreak, and then the match.

At the US Open Finals a month later, it was Djokovic who broke Federer at 5-5 in the first set and went up 40-0 on his ensuing service game (3 set points). Federer somehow broke back, won the tiebreak, and then the match.

What a weird mirror image between those two matches!
Actually there were three (two 40-15's and one 15-40), with Federer squandering double match points, 2 at consecutive USO semis (2010/2011), and 1 at Wimby finals (2019).

The comparison of those against the 40-0/0-40's matches you mention (which I now learn they existed) is useful to illustrate the difference between consequential and inconsequential outcomes of chances spoiled.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Fraud got broken from 40-15 twice in the 3rd set of 15 USO and then blew his chance to break Joe from 40-0. What a sequence that was. Also of course the famous break and miss from 40-15 that allowed Joe to pull away in 15 Wimby.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
dcvcozy-796d38f7-68ca-4d52-8825-4f49bf8890cf.gif
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Actually there were three (two 40-15's and one 15-40), with Federer squandering double match points, 2 at consecutive USO semis (2010/2011), and 1 at Wimby finals (2019).

The comparison of those against the 40-0/0-40's matches you mention (which I now learn they existed) is useful to illustrate the difference between consequential and inconsequential outcomes of chances spoiled.
Consequential vs. inconsequential? What do you mean, gentleman?
 

Berrettini_Fan

Semi-Pro
Actually there were three (two 40-15's and one 15-40), with Federer squandering double match points, 2 at consecutive USO semis (2010/2011), and 1 at Wimby finals (2019).

The comparison of those against the 40-0/0-40's matches you mention (which I now learn they existed) is useful to illustrate the difference between consequential and inconsequential outcomes of chances spoiled.
Those were very consequential matches.

Losing the 2007 Canadian Open prevented Federer from achieving the North American Hardcourt Sweep as he won Cincy and USO that year. Nadal in 2013 is the only member of the Big 3 to achieve that still.

Losing that first set in the US Open was a huge mental setback for Djoker. Had he won it, it would've given him confidence and momentum. As it was, he actually broke early in the second set but was later broken back. Would winning that first set helped him to consolidate his break later? At 5-6 in the second set, Djoker also earned 2 set points on Federer's serve (15-40) but couldn't convert either and ended up losing that set in a tiebreak too. Would winning the first set have given him the confidence to take those break points (or Federer, being down a set, may have gotten nervous and been unable to save those break points). See how consequential that was?
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Those were very consequential matches.

Losing the 2007 Canadian Open prevented Federer from achieving the North American Hardcourt Sweep as he won Cincy and USO that year. Nadal in 2013 is the only member of the Big 3 to achieve that still.

Losing that first set in the US Open was a huge mental setback for Djoker. Had he won it, it would've given him confidence and momentum. As it was, he actually broke early in the second set but was later broken back. Would winning that first set helped him to consolidate his break later? At 5-6 in the second set, Djoker also earned 2 set points on Federer's serve (15-40) but couldn't convert either and ended up losing that set in a tiebreak too. Would winning the first set have given him the confidence to take those break points (or Federer, being down a set, may have gotten nervous and been unable to save those break points). See how consequential that was?
You have a point in what you say. But the comparative relevance of the matches is proven by the clearest memory most people have of Fed's 40-15/15-40's.
 

Berrettini_Fan

Semi-Pro
You have a point in what you say. But the comparative relevance of the matches is proven by the clearest memory most people have of Fed's 40-15/15-40's.
That's because folks have bafflingly short memories. Losing serve from 40-0 is a lot harder than losing serve from 40-15.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
That's because folks have bafflingly short memories. Losing serve from 40-0 is a lot harder than losing serve from 40-15.
You are correct that losing serve from 40-0 is harder than from 40-15.
But the specific 40-15's we are discussing are more famous according to the collective memory of almost everyone here. Just that.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Fraud got broken from 40-15 twice in the 3rd set of 15 USO and then blew his chance to break Joe from 40-0. What a sequence that was. Also of course the famous break and miss from 40-15 that allowed Joe to pull away in 15 Wimby.
A peak Fed wins 19 times out of 20 it doesn't matter.
 
Top