Federer would have won Wimbledon if he were using his K90. The RF97 extended his career but muted his aggression....

California

Rookie
You can hit more successful halve volleys with the K90 than the RF97

My problem was always that he should have redesigned the K90 by
giving it 3 inches to 5 max not 7, it actually looks quite ridiculous
to see such a big head with his style and technique.
3 inches larger head and not the 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm beam width
but 19mm / 19mm / 21mm like the Bridgestone x-blade 93 a real beast.
I agree, I feel the racquet change was slightly too extreme. He seems to spray his forehand with the RF 97, like it has a little too much inherent power. He knows better than I do, he chose it... I would have thought a 95 with a thinner beam and softer flex would have been better for him.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Again? I warned you in advance that your contention should be put into perspective should you disagree with what I was saying my understanding about what your conversation was about (as outlined in my warning in post #18). You tried to get out of it, by in fact claiming that that was a talk about very important tactic that you simply addressed. Since I asked you to prove your contention you even tried by providing posts that supposedly proved your point. I had to point out to you that you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued the importance the posters were attributing to that tactic as opposed to what you were saying (i.e. that the posters were including it only as an element of a diversified approach as opposed to your contention that they meant it as a major point (copious amounts, hehe)).

In short: you talked about it as an answer to what you considered to be a major tactical point, so you considered it such. Your conversation in this thread with the other poster was as of such, so nothing indicates anything different. You wanted to sound smart.
The posters I quoted were propping up the slice as a weapon against Djokovic to varying degrees. If you can't see that, that's not my problem.

You claiming I said the slice was a main part of Fed's actual strategy is also pure fabrication on your part.

Jeebus. MOST OF THE TIME THE SLICE IS USED AS A DEFENSIVE SHOT (caps in the hope that this time it can get through your thick skull). Your contention that it was used as a neutral rally shot, isn't even applicable for most cases when it is used. He WAS in disadvantage in overwhelming majority of the cases when he used it, that is why he used it (as another poster already addressed you, but you don't seem to take a hint or intentionally pretend to not understand).
I already said I have no problems with the slice used as a defensive shot. I thought we had already moved past that, but I guess it's easier to attack a strawman, no?

Really, Djokovic's DTL "wasn't there"? One of his signature shots with which he punished many of his most difficult opponents including Nadal? :rolleyes:
It wasn't there in this match, or this tournament. Or did he also not go DTL against Bautista Agut because of Federer's slices?

Looking for a change of pace when Federer thought that he is in good position to play on his FH. Change when his BH is getting tentative.
Clearly it didn't work. I know you are going to say it was the Federer FH that let him down here, but the slice DTL was what allowed Djokovic to gain the upper hand.

So, I was right that you don't even present the statement in its true context. The summation of the game is what wins or loses matches, it pertains to the end result, not that players don't have strengths and weaknesses (that would be absolutely absurd). That is kindergarten level of representation of what I said.
Claiming the "summation of one's game" is what wins or loses matches sounds like a lot like claiming individual strengths and weaknesses are irrelevant.

If you claim that you were talking about only the few instances where Federer was using the slice as an effort to gain an advantage, your claim is largely a figment of your own imagination. I don't think that you are able to make a call like that, seeing that you don't even make a difference between a slice borne out of necessity and one aimed to "create and advantage". Not only that, but you don't even properly analyse the the situations where he DID use it to change pace and patterns. The deficiency was not in the tactic, but in the execution, to be precise, that his FH was beyond atrocious with which Djokovic has almost nothing to do. One has to see the amount of UE on that wing to realise that Djokovic got away with it because Federer's FH wasn't clicking. Announcing as ineffective the slice because of it is something I already talked about when I told you that you are unable to comprehend the influence of the other parts of the game on the estimate about the effectiveness of the tactic.
I've already said multiple times that I don't have an issue with the slice as a defensive resource. You introduced the defensive slice into the discussion, as it was never part of my criticism to begin with.

As for the latter, when Fed did use it to change pace and patterns - which was always what I was criticizing, see:

I don't take seriously your statements about "many of anything" any more as it looks like you use it absolutely randomly with no substance whatsoever. I also know for a fact that you use it as a getaway card when you can't prove anything.
It is your claim. Provide the details.
What I described was how I arrived at the conclusion that the slice was ineffective. I added up that tally in my head.

This was my impression when watching the match. I'm not actually going to go through every single instance of it to prove a point.

I am not conflating anything. You tried to conflate them by saying that his supposed ineffectiveness is the proof that they are wrong.
But it is. Nothing "supposed" about the ineffectiveness. It was ineffective.

On the way to that you sprinkled more conflations like what exactly is major and minor point, and which slice you were discussing (but only after it was clear that you don't even understand that most of the time the slice wasn't even used to gain an upper hand. Hell, to that moment you repeat that Federer was using it as way to gain advantage.) You are pretty much stuck on both counts that you mentioned. You haven't proven anything in regards with the the first (or rather, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about, which was the very first question I asked you about in this thread), and for the second I already showed that your use of the phrase is that of addressing a major point, including using the definition, which clearly points at a unsolvable problem you are yet to address.

:cool:
Again, the belief that slices should be a major part of a gameplan against Djokovic (i.e.: "magic bullet") is held by posters here. I've seen a poster literally say Fed should only use the BH slice against Djokovic. Again, I don't think Fed himself believes that, or attempted to implement it in the match as a main strategy.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The posters I quoted were propping up the slice as a weapon against Djokovic to varying degrees. If you can't see that, that's not my problem.
Oh, no dear, you were insisting that they were making a major point:

See here:

A bunch of Fed fans on the thread suggesting copious use of the slice
You claiming I said the slice was a main part of Fed's actual strategy is also pure fabrication on your part.
See the above quote and my previous clarification as to how I arrived to that conclusion. It is worth nothing that I made the following point, which you completely ignored:

by in fact claiming that that was a talk about very important tactic that you simply addressed. Since I asked you to prove your contention you even tried by providing posts that supposedly proved your point. I had to point out to you that you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued the importance the posters were attributing to that tactic as opposed to what you were saying (i.e. that the posters were including it only as an element of a diversified approach as opposed to your contention that they meant it as a major point (copious amounts, hehe))

So, it is not "pure fabrication", but something based on your own statements and activities here.

I already said I have no problems with the slice used as a defensive shot. I thought we had already moved past that, but I guess it's easier to attack a strawman, no?
I thought that too, but then you said this:

It did not give him an advantage - that much is clear. The problem was many times it put Fed at a disadvantage in what was originally a neutral rally
Failing to produce evidence that you make a difference and what that was for the rallies you have in mind, as of now you claim that Federer started from the position of a neutral rally, when the very definition (and what you apparently agree with, but not really as evidenced by your continuous ignoring of the fact) of of using the slice is as a defensive shot, is unsubstantiated, which led to my objection to what you are saying and the subsequent caps lock in an effort to make you realise what you are doing. You seem to be ok with both saying that you understand that the slice is used primarily as a defensive shot, and claiming that the rallies where Federer used it were neutral, when the defensive nature of the shot says something different.

It wasn't there in this match, or this tournament. Or did he also not go DTL against Bautista Agut because of Federer's slices?
That statement is so pulled out of some dark places that I am itching to see a comparison between the Wimbledon 2018 and Wimbledon 2019 to substantiate your claim. Do it or GTFO with it.


Clearly it didn't work. I know you are going to say it was the Federer FH that let him down here, but the slice DTL was what allowed Djokovic to gain the upper hand.
So, having a deficit of two MP is called "getting the upper hand" in the fantasy universe of the Djokoland?

Claiming the "summation of one's game" is what wins or loses matches sounds like a lot like claiming individual strengths and weaknesses are irrelevant.
Except, the claim is that the result determines whether the summation is being effective, not that the effectiveness comes without strengths and weaknesses. The hilarity continues.


I've already said multiple times that I don't have an issue with the slice as a defensive resource. You introduced the defensive slice into the discussion, as it was never part of my criticism to begin with.
Dear, you didn't even make a distinction between defensive and offensive slice. I had to introduce the defensive slice in order to exemplify why your big talk is nonsense. Whether you agree (but not really understand, as evidenced by your continuing claim on the neutrality of the rally upon using the slice)

As for the latter, when Fed did use it to change pace and patterns - which was always what I was criticizing, see:
Yes, see:

Novak also neutralised the CC slice pretty well
:rolleyes:

What I described was how I arrived at the conclusion that the slice was ineffective. I added up that tally in my head.

This was my impression when watching the match. I'm not actually going to go through every single instance of it to prove a point. But it is. Nothing "supposed" about the ineffectiveness. It was ineffective.


I am sure that you won't even roughly try to prove it. In your head you are right, and that is what gives the strength of your "argument".

Aaaand, to top it off:

Again, the belief that slices should be a major part of a gameplan against Djokovic (i.e.: "magic bullet") is held by posters here. I've seen a poster literally say Fed should only use the BH slice against Djokovic. Again, I don't think Fed himself believes that, or attempted to implement it in the match as a main strategy.
After all the BS you put me through to so easily concede the point you were trying to disprove .... not a good sign.

:cool:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Oh, no dear, you were insisting that they were making a major point:

See here:
To "varying degrees" means some were making a major point, some were making it a minor point.

See the above quote and my previous clarification as to how I arrived to that conclusion. It is worth nothing that I made the following point, which you completely ignored:

by in fact claiming that that was a talk about very important tactic that you simply addressed. Since I asked you to prove your contention you even tried by providing posts that supposedly proved your point. I had to point out to you that you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued the importance the posters were attributing to that tactic as opposed to what you were saying (i.e. that the posters were including it only as an element of a diversified approach as opposed to your contention that they meant it as a major point (copious amounts, hehe))

So, it is not "pure fabrication", but something based on your own statements and activities here.
You made a logic leap by not understanding what I was saying.

That statement is so pulled out of some dark places that I am itching to see a comparison between the Wimbledon 2018 and Wimbledon 2019 to substantiate your claim. Do it or GTFO with it.
This was my impression watching Djokovic's matches. He wasn't hitting it particularly well last year, either.

So, having a deficit of two MP is called "getting the upper hand" in the fantasy universe of the Djokoland?
Getting the upper hand in the rallies where Fed sliced DTL to the Djokovic forehand. Even if Fed won the match, that wouldn't have changed this assessment.

Dear, you didn't even make a distinction between defensive and offensive slice. I had to introduce the defensive slice in order to exemplify why your big talk is nonsense. Whether you agree (but not really understand, as evidenced by your continuing claim on the neutrality of the rally upon using the slice)
Failing to produce evidence that you make a difference and what that was for the rallies you have in mind, as of now you claim that Federer started from the position of a neutral rally, when the very definition (and what you apparently agree with, but not really as evidenced by your continuous ignoring of the fact) of of using the slice is as a defensive shot, is unsubstantiated, which led to my objection to what you are saying and the subsequent caps lock in an effort to make you realise what you are doing. You seem to be ok with both saying that you understand that the slice is used primarily as a defensive shot, and claiming that the rallies where Federer used it were neutral, when the defensive nature of the shot says something different.
If you are forced to hit a shot out of necessity, then it's not really part of your strategy. I thought that was self-evident.

Yes, see:
You can hit a slice from a neutral position CC or DTL.

I am sure that you won't even roughly try to prove it. In your head you are right, and that is what gives the strength of your "argument".
I know what I saw. If you believe the slice was effective, that's your prerogative. It didn't really match up with what actually happened.

After all the BS you put me through to so easily concede the point you were trying to disprove .... not a good sign.
What am I conceding? There is a number of posters here who do believe that.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
To "varying degrees" means some were making a major point, some were making it a minor point.
Yes, but you insisted that they are making a major point. I had to correct you that some are making that point in the context of a diversified strategy.

:rolleyes:

You made a logic leap by not understanding what I was saying.
I specifically explained everything around that situation. Saying something like that doesn't suddenly make my words go away.


This was my impression watching Djokovic's matches. He wasn't hitting it particularly well last year, either.
Oh, noez!


Getting the upper hand in the rallies where Fed sliced DTL to the Djokovic forehand. Even if Fed won the match, that wouldn't have changed this assessment.
Where he managed that he managed it because Federer's FH was an UE machine, not because that was particularly good for Djokovic.

You are also very much wrong about your speculation. Everyone would have been praising Federer for his clever strategy of mixing it up and stifling Djokovic by not giving him openings. While the slices are by no means the main focus of that, he certainly made sure that Djokovic cannot use part of his arsenal, and as other poster noted, going out of that match Djokovic knows that many more players now have a plan against him.


If you are forced to hit a shot out of necessity, then it's not really part of your strategy. I thought that was self-evident.
Apparently not to you, since you insist that hitting slices was Fed's strategy, and not only that, but to establish control. That goes agains the primary use of the shot and against what happened in the match. You don't even understand that even going DTL is not "getting the upper hand". I already commented on that, but really, you are not talking with tennis arguments, so it is useless to talk to you about it as you are incompetent.


You can hit a slice from a neutral position CC or DTL.
Jeebus, your obfuscations are something else: the point I was making was to your claim that you was always talking about the DTL slice, and I posted your words about the success against the CC slice. It directly disproved that you had only the DTL slice in mind when you talked about it. I bolded all the relevant parts too, since your memory is failing you.


I know what I saw. If you believe the slice was effective, that's your prerogative. It didn't really match up with what actually happened.
Taking one of Djokovic's most dangerous weapons out of his hands is in fact a success and your retort that he didn't have it in that tournament is absolutely hilarious. Now I see that you extended it also to the last Wimbledon. God knows where this will end if I continue asking. Don't worry, it is not a problem, as I am not interested to keep wasting time with that sort of hilarity.


What am I conceding? There is a number of posters here who do believe that.
Haha. You made a point of addressing their claim as it is. Not only that, but I already described every step of the process that made it clear what you think about it expressed in what you did or said. Don't worry, the only one who you are trying to convince is yourself. Apparently you are so numb, that you cannot even understand your own arguments, and everything is about the others, but not about what you say or write. No wonder that you are on board of the victim theory for Novak: with him are also always the others that are to blame.

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I agree... if he had the movement and physicality to play his old 2003-2012 style with the old racket then this final, along with 2014 may have been over in 4 sets.

Sadly, he got too old and had to upgrade as he slowed down. He’s done very well with the larger racket considering.
 
The mano-a-mano exchange in this thread. :-D Dying.

Not my thing to break it into pieces that way, but hilarious to me to see it done. Tit for tat. Micro-style. (y)
 

tex123

Semi-Pro
IDK if I really believe this completely, but he was ripping the ball with his K90 while his strokes with the RF97 are basically half volley groundies. Of course the RF97 has gobs more power and he really did need to rip it with his tiny 90.......but the 90 still did have serious plow. He uses his opponents pace more nowadays and that has for sure extended his career due to less wear and tear. Thoughts?
Nothing to do with rackets. Fed was the better player in almost every stat. He should've won. Period.
He did everything right and outplayed Novak. He just did not believe when it mattered the most.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but you insisted that they are making a major point. I had to correct you that some are making that point in the context of a diversified strategy.
But were making the point nonetheless.

Where he managed that he managed it because Federer's FH was an UE machine, not because that was particularly good for Djokovic.
I'd have to class those errors (Fed's next shots after Djokovic redirected the DTL slice to Fed's FH) as forced errors.

You are also very much wrong about your speculation. Everyone would have been praising Federer for his clever strategy of mixing it up and stifling Djokovic by not giving him openings. While the slices are by no means the main focus of that, he certainly made sure that Djokovic cannot use part of his arsenal, and as other poster noted, going out of that match Djokovic knows that many more players now have a plan against him.
LOL, then "everyone" would be wrong. I certainly wouldn't be part of this "everyone."

I doubt Djokovic was at all bothered by the slice, much less worried about future opponents attempting to use it as part of their strategy.

Apparently not to you, since you insist that hitting slices was Fed's strategy, and not only that, but to establish control. That goes agains the primary use of the shot and against what happened in the match. You don't even understand that even going DTL is not "getting the upper hand". I already commented on that, but really, you are not talking with tennis arguments, so it is useless to talk to you about it as you are incompetent.
I said there is a distinction between using the slice as a defensive tool, and using the slice as a deliberate strategy. The latter failed.

Jeebus, your obfuscations are something else: the point I was making was to your claim that you was always talking about the DTL slice, and I posted your words about the success against the CC slice. It directly disproved that you had only the DTL slice in mind when you talked about it. I bolded all the relevant parts too, since your memory is failing you.
This was my first comment on this topic:
He definitely overused the slice in this match, specially DTL to Djokovic's forehand. It didn't really bother Djokovic
It should be easy to infer that I meant Fed's use of the slice as a strategy, was unsuccessful overall. This includes the CC slice. But the DTL slice was specially bad. It's not that hard to understand.

Taking one of Djokovic's most dangerous weapons out of his hands is in fact a success and your retort that he didn't have it in that tournament is absolutely hilarious. Now I see that you extended it also to the last Wimbledon. God knows where this will end if I continue asking. Don't worry, it is not a problem, as I am not interested to keep wasting time with that sort of hilarity.
This isn't any different than you claiming Fed's FH wasn't clicking.

Haha. You made a point of addressing their claim as it is. Not only that, but I already described every step of the process that made it clear what you think about it expressed in what you did or said. Don't worry, the only one who you are trying to convince is yourself. Apparently you are so numb, that you cannot even understand your own arguments, and everything is about the others, but not about what you say or write. No wonder that you are on board of the victim theory for Novak: with him are also always the others that are to blame.
As a Novak fan, I often see "magic bullet" type of solutions being proposed to beat him, with varying degrees of ridiculousness. Redirect the ball DTL! Slice every backhand! Attack the net! Bring him forward and lob him!

They say this as if not only Djokovic would allow them to implement these game plans, but also imply that he would have no answers. The slice as a magic bullet is just one in a long line of similar solutions to the Djokovic "problem." Fed's slicing proving ineffective in this match is evidence against this "solution," so I added that comment. It's nowhere near any of the nonsense you think I said or meant.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
I agree, I feel the racquet change was slightly too extreme. He seems to spray his forehand with the RF 97, like it has a little too much inherent power. He knows better than I do, he chose it... I would have thought a 95 with a thinner beam and softer flex would have been better for him.
I think it took him many years just to adjust to halve volley tennis and sure his FH can be a beast with the 97 but reliability is way overrated in modern homogenized tennis thats why the tour is moving towards tweener racquets and having on and off days more often than not. A player like Daniel Evans seemed to hit harder FHs than Federer with the WPS95, better controlled slices with more reliability but could never serve like Federer.
Even Dmitrov had better figures with the 93 than the 97 but lacks the brain and natural strength Fed has in every department.

Djokovic even went down in weight to get more racquet head velocity, it happens with age yet Fed is 38 and swinging something nobody can
and even himself now it represents a massive challenge. You have to keep tweaking your stick as you age :)
An eastern grip with that oversized beast is just so ridiculous.

All credit to him for almost winning but at the expense of taking a decade off his family no money for botox can take away that kind of stress!
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
But were making the point nonetheless..
Haha. It is not only about what other points they are making. It is about what you are addressing. "Copious amounts". Take a seat!

I'd have to class those errors (Fed's next shots after Djokovic redirected the DTL slice to Fed's FH) as forced errors..
Take several seats!

LOL, then "everyone" would be wrong. I certainly wouldn't be part of this "everyone.
Bulbs, sheds!

I doubt Djokovic was at all bothered by the slice, much less worried about future opponents attempting to use it as part of their strategy.
Wasn't bothered at all. That is why he was at the brink of defeat, despite of his opponent's FH not being there. Seats!

I said there is a distinction between using the slice as a defensive tool, and using the slice as a deliberate strategy. The latter failed.
No, you claimed that you had in mind the DTL slice when you discuss the strategy. Strawmen and more seats!

This was my first comment on this topic:

It should be easy to infer that I meant Fed's use of the slice as a strategy, was unsuccessful overall. This includes the CC slice. But the DTL slice was specially bad. It's not that hard to understand.
Even your first post contains disproval that you had in mind only the DTL slice. Seats!

This isn't any different than you claiming Fed's FH wasn't clicking.
It in fact is, as I can easily prove it by quoting the ratio between the W/UE from that side which was 1/3. You fail. More seats!

As a Novak fan, I often see "magic bullet" type of solutions being proposed to beat him, with varying degrees of ridiculousness. Redirect the ball DTL! Slice every backhand! Attack the net! Bring him forward and lob him!
You surely use various degrees of ridiculousness. Take several!

They say this as if not only Djokovic would allow them to implement these game plans, but also imply that he would have no answers. The slice as a magic bullet is just one in a long line of similar solutions to the Djokovic "problem." Fed's slicing proving ineffective in this match is evidence against this "solution," so I added that comment. It's nowhere near any of the nonsense you think I said or meant.
Repeat that until you turn blue! Seats.

Oh wait, blue seats for you! Have them all!

Here:



:cool:
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
I agree, I feel the racquet change was slightly too extreme. He seems to spray his forehand with the RF 97, like it has a little too much inherent power. He knows better than I do, he chose it... I would have thought a 95 with a thinner beam and softer flex would have been better for him.
We all need to tweak our sticks as we age :) but swinging/halve volleying an RF98 at that weight at his age is an art form
that is hard to maintain for over 3 hours in those condition let alone almost 5 hours.

Day in day out someone who grew up with an 85sq, eastern grip and SHBH always does better with a 90 to 95 for reliability
Sure the tour is moving towards tweener sticks but even Djokovic plays with a 95 and lowered his weight but kept his sw.
This improved his overheads and able to get a bit more oomph on his FH albeit 10-15% less reliability with his BH which
he could easily afford to do with it being such a solid weapon vs anything except a rare peaking beast mode Wawa blow.

Incredible Fed almost did win but anyone in his box and many fans have lost about a decade due to prolonged stress.
Maybe Mirka can get more botox on the outside, some mindless love when Fed recovers, but that kind of stress is hard to undo.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Wasn't bothered at all. That is why he was at the brink of defeat, despite of his opponent's FH not being there. Seats!
He was on the brink of defeat not because of the slices, but for other reasons. Mainly his inability to return the Federer serve effectively for most of the match.

No, you claimed that you had in mind the DTL slice when you discuss the strategy. Strawmen and more seats!

Even your first post contains disproval that you had in mind only the DTL slice. Seats!
Disproval of what? When did I ever say I only had the DTL slice in mind? That is yet another one of your inventions.

I have been saying both slices as a strategy failed. Just the DTL slice failed harder.

It in fact is, as I can easily prove it by quoting the ratio between the W/UE from that side which was 1/3. You fail. More seats!
Oh look, another lie!
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/1701.html

Between groundstrokes, approaches, and passing shots, Fed was 25:28 on the forehand wing. That is nowhere near 1/3.

And if you have easily accessible directional stats on the shots, I'd show you where the Djokovic BHDTL has (or hasn't) been
You surely use various degrees of ridiculousness. Take several!

Repeat that until you turn blue! Seats.

Oh wait, blue seats for you! Have them all!/QUOTE]
I can only lead a horse to water...
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Nothing to do with rackets. Fed was the better player in almost every stat. He should've won. Period.
He did everything right and outplayed Novak. He just did not believe when it mattered the most.
You often witness experience players as they age to almost wheelchair speed eg. 65 and over using tweeners and OS sticks
halve volleying and magic wanding grandkids away with ease, thats were Fed is the gatekeeper vs todays tweener selfies
but when you get a counter puncher like Djokovic, errors and lack of belief quickly set in on anyone who is mainly an aggressor
swinging a stick that is just too big to play like he used to day in day out.

All the stats might have showed Fed was best overall but that is mainly because for 2 sets and more Nole was out in fairy land
but not once you could feel he was not dominating Federer and could easily withstand and counter almost anything.
Both had some of the worse return percentages ever but Nole didnt need to be at his best to beat Roger.

Its hard to find confidence when your stick is too powerful, hence the halve volleys and improvised game all round
If Fed was to believe in himself he would be by playing freely without throwing caution to the wind as he does now
in tight situations vs a peak Djokovic, Raonic, Anderson or even lowly bottom crumber like Millman.

So many things are required for a tennis player to be at his best, Fed needs more of those things than Nole
even an over-emotional cardboard wife at the box is another thing you can do without @ 38 in a wimby GS final.
 
Last edited:

tex123

Semi-Pro
You often witness experience players as they age to almost wheelchair speed eg. 65 and over using tweeners and OS sticks
halve volleying and magic wanding grandkids away with ease, thats were Fed is the gatekeeper vs todays tweener selfies
but when you get a counter puncher like Djokovic, errors and lack of belief quickly set in on anyone who is mainly an aggressor
swinging a stick that is just too big to play like he used to day in day out.

All the stats might have showed Fed was best overall but that is mainly because for 2 sets and more Nole was out in fairy land
but not once you could feel he was not dominating Federer and could easily withstand and counter almost anything.
Both had some of the worse return percentages ever but Nole didnt need to be at his best to beat Roger.

Its hard to find confidence when your stick is too powerful, hence the halve volleys and improvised game all round
If Fed was to believe in himself he would be by playing freely without throwing caution to the wind as he does now
in tight situations vs a peak Djokovic, Raonic, Anderson or even lowly bottom crumber like Millman.

So many things are required for a tennis player to be at his best, Fed needs more of those things than Nole
even an over-emotional cardboard wife at the box is another thing you can do without @ 38 in a wimby GS final.
We are talking about the greatest player in the history of the game. Agreed your mind plays more games as you age but that was in Fed's bag.

I actually supported Novak in the final. Never for a moment I felt Novak had control of the match and I thought Fed would win at some point as he was playing better tennis.
 

Rabe87

Professional
We are talking about the greatest player in the history of the game. Agreed your mind plays more games as you age but that was in Fed's bag.

I actually supported Novak in the final. Never for a moment I felt Novak had control of the match and I thought Fed would win at some point as he was playing better tennis.
Fed isn't the GOAT of this generation, how can he be the GOAT? Silly rabbit.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Can you stop following me like a bad smell? Or I'll put you on ignore maybe?
If you have reasonable arguments, I shall answer.
You make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinion and then state them as fact, learn something from me, fact beats your deflated opinions every time. Pop me on ignore, my braincells diminish everytime I read a post authored by you.
 

tex123

Semi-Pro
You make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinion and then state them as fact, learn something from me, fact beats your deflated opinions every time. Pop me on ignore, my braincells diminish everytime I read a post authored by you.
Learn something from you? Who do you think you are? No arguments just baseless moronic arguments from a crazy Novak fan.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
We are talking about the greatest player in the history of the game. Agreed your mind plays more games as you age but that was in Fed's bag.

I actually supported Novak in the final. Never for a moment I felt Novak had control of the match and I thought Fed would win at some point as he was playing better tennis.
Greatest player only for those who love all court tennis and grew up watching tennis before the homogenization eventually
made way for no S&V, pure baseline pushery and counter-punching marathon tennis. I agree he is the greatest player in
many ways but that title fails miserably when it comes to his BH. Players like Becker, Laver, Nadal, Nole, Thiem and Sampras
were more complete than Federer when it comes to rating every part of their game Nole falling short in overheads vs Fedal
but now with a lighter playing weight is more reliable than before albeit still not close to great.

I put Federer as the greatest GS winner atm till Nole takes the lead but would easily put Federer as the Greatest in terms
of beautiful tennis and creative and effective variety. Not variety like Clownfills but another level above McEnroe and Laver.

In the homogenized tennis era we had an inking of what was to come as an old fat slow Agassi could easily challenge
Federer even at his peak (Even Agassi faced Fed after many more grueling Semis and less rest than Fed had managed for himself)

Feds level was no better than the Semis but Noles level was even lower and yet he was able to muffle Fed anytime he bothered.
If you are easily biased then Flashy tennis can constitute better tennis for most viewers, sure it captures your attention and excites
even me that appreciates seeing beautiful tennis as Fed can play. Unfortunately Nole seemed to me more solid when it mattered
by playing the defensive counter punching style that even at low levels can stay ahead in homogenized modern tennis conditions.

I wanted to see a good match and was surprised Fed could hang in, not dominate but hang in while Nole dictated what he wanted
and the stats dont lie, Nole even at this lowly level pipped Federer in every department and that is the reality even Mirka knew this.
(Fed Snr & Mother were like prayers in a church, Mirka was negative and impulsive as usual while the rest were humble and just hopeful
even Lube was like he knew this will only end in dread but remained as hopeful as he could)

https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/2019/540/MS001/match-stats?isLive=False


 
Last edited:
Top