Man, that one was a W for the ages!

Djokovic would have needed to win two more tough matches over Tsitsipas and Thiem/Zverev to be #1. Plus Djokovic already has 275 weeks and 5 years at #1, he's not desperate to be #1.

Overrated match just because of Federer. In 2016 the #1 was really on the line between Murray and Djokovic but I never heard of it as a great win for Murray.
I can see why it would be for a Djoker fan. But as a Fed fan it was huge. At 38, winning this match is a big deal if you are a Fed fan after what we have been through this year. Plus, it gives him an opportunity to win the tourney now too.

If I were a Djoker fan, I would not be too bummed, as he will have plenty of opportunities in the future to get weeks or WTF's and maybe YE#1's. But Fed fans know the end could be right around the corner, so naturally we hang on to wins and losses more than other fan bases.

This time will come for Djoker fans too eventually.
 
The Djoker we saw today has no percent. When he does not care like today, he can have moments that are incredible, followed by "whatever" shots. Zero emotion showed.

Want and passion are huge. In my personal opinion, when Djoker shows passion and wants something, he usually takes it. When it's absent, it's there to be taken from him. WC19 is a good example of this, but Fed did not take advantage of it. He did today.
Agreed 100%

But I believe the reason Djokovic lost 'passion' in the match was because how well Roger was serving. Novak likes to return a few balls in and engage in rallies to build confidence. But Fed put the hammer down with intent and kept Novak out of his comfort zone.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
lol, nice one.

Fed's got eight other Wimbledon titles to console himself with. :)

Losing to a 38-year-old...? Djoker gets that one all to himself. Forever. :sneaky:

Thanks for your interest!
You would rather Fed win the 2019 RR WTF match than the 2019 Wimbledon final? Ok - each to their own. I can assure you that Djokovic fans will agree with you on that one.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
So you'd prefer the RR WTF win would you? Ok TH - one of your best
There is nothing to "prefer", so you twisted yourself in yet another pretzel. Federer is getting wins that are constantly influencing the outcomes and that is why they are important in themselves. He just denied Djokovic the chance to surpass him in two important metrics no matter how much you want to downplay his win by talking about "RR match".

:cool:
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Djokovic would have needed to win two more tough matches over Tsitsipas and Thiem/Zverev to be #1. Plus Djokovic already has 275 weeks and 5 years at #1, he's not desperate to be #1.

Overrated match just because of Federer. In 2016 the #1 was really on the line between Murray and Djokovic but I never heard of it as a great win for Murray.
djokovic was the odds on favorite to win the title.

you could say the same about fed or nadal too...they have won so much, they aren't desperate for another slam.

it doesn't make the match less significant.

#1 is extremely important to novak. he has said so himself...nadal too would have taken this week off as a precaution were #1 not on the line.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
djokovic was the odds on favorite to win the title.

you could say the same about fed or nadal too...they have won so much, they aren't desperate for another slam.

it doesn't make the match less significant.

#1 is extremely important to novak. he has said so himself...nadal too would have taken this week off as a precaution were #1 not on the line.
Slams are much more important than #1.

Djokovic would have had around 30% chance of beating both Tsitsi and Thiem IMO.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
The only true way to make this RR victory memorable would have been to win the WTF, but Roger blew that one too.

Absolutely nobody will remember Novak losing 2 RR matches at WTF, one of them to Roger, when the new champion is Tsitsipas.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
Is there really no middle ground between saying "the victory is as important as a Wimbledon Final" and "it was completely meaningless"?

It was a good morale booster, stopped Djoko potentially winning the tournament and stopped him getting to No1. Not earth shattering but a good win nonetheless.
 
Im a big Roger fan but this thread... jeezus, what amssive yikes. Winning a 2 set match against Djokovic like its the greatest mathc of all time...Djokovic had a 10 times bigger a victory at Wimbledon, unofrtunately.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Im a big Roger fan but this thread... jeezus, what amssive yikes. Winning a 2 set match against Djokovic like its the greatest mathc of all time...Djokovic had a 10 times bigger a victory at Wimbledon, unofrtunately.
That win has nothing to do with Wimbledon, and the repercussions from it definitely aren't negligible. It indeed altered the history of tennis more than many would like to admit, even if was a mere RR match.

:cool:
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
There is nothing to "prefer", so you twisted yourself in yet another pretzel. Federer is getting wins that are constantly influencing the outcomes and that is why they are important in themselves. He just denied Djokovic the chance to surpass him in two important metrics no matter how much you want to downplay his win by talking about "RR match".

:cool:
Yes, ok.... because that's much more important that winning Wimbledon and adding to your own legacy
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic would have needed to win two more tough matches over Tsitsipas and Thiem/Zverev to be #1. Plus Djokovic already has 275 weeks and 5 years at #1, he's not desperate to be #1.

Overrated match just because of Federer. In 2016 the #1 was really on the line between Murray and Djokovic but I never heard of it as a great win for Murray.
Djokovic was so close to finish 2016 and 2019 as YE#1 with a little more of luck.
Amazing to think that he could have had 7 YE#1 finishes as of today.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was so close to finish 2016 and 2019 as YE#1 with a little more of luck.
Amazing to think that he could have had 7 YE#1 finishes as of today.
Yes, Djokovic was the #2 with the most points ever in 2013 and 2016.

Seasons with 11,000+ points: Djokovic 6, Federer 4, Nadal 3.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
Yes, Djokovic was the #2 with the most points ever in 2013 and 2016.

Seasons with 11,000+ points: Djokovic 6, Federer 4, Nadal 3.
When I say so close in 2016 and 2019, I meant that he had chances until the last tournament of the calendar.
In 2016, he was even still fighting for the YE#1 in the WTF final. (Lost it to Murray in the last match of the season).
I don’t remember how close he came in 2013 though.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
When I say so close in 2016 and 2019, I meant that he had chances until the last tournament of the calendar.
In 2016, he was even still fighting for the YE#1 in the WTF final. (Lost it to Murray in the last match of the season).
I don’t remember how close he came in 2013 though.
He had chances to be #1 at the 2013 YEC too.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Basel titles: 10>1

There’s no doubt Fed is the best indoors, probably would’ve won more had they not changed Madrid and Shanghai.
The problem here is that he always prioritized Basel instead of the Paris masters.I truly believe that he would have won more titles in Paris, had there not been Basel.Still, he underperformed a few times in Bercy, like in 2010 when he lost to Monfils.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The problem here is that he always prioritized Basel instead of the Paris masters.I truly believe that he would have won more titles in Paris, had there not been Basel.Still, he underperformed a few times in Bercy, like in 2010 when he lost to Monfils.
Yeah, especially in years like 2004-2006 where he was injured. Would’ve likely done well/better in 2012, 2014 and 2017 too.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Paris masters LOL.


Djokovic toughest Paris final opponents:

Monfils
Ferrer
Raonic
Murray
Shapovalov

Federer toughest Basel final opponents:

Gonzalez
Nalbandian
Djokovic
Nadal
Del Potro

no contest
You can't be serious with this comment. Lol. Federer is 8-6 against top 10 opponents in Basel after playing it 19 times. Djokovic is 15-1 against the top 10 in Paris Masters after playing it 14 times with wins over players like Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka and Tsitsipas. While you are talking about who Djokovic played in finals you left out who he's actually been beating there and how often he plays top players. You're right there is no contest because clearly Paris Masters is a tougher and bigger tournament.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I wouldn't call it a win for the ages.

Wimb 2019 would have been a win for the ages.

This win was a good one, but if it doesn't translate to a slam win against Novak, it will quickly be forgotten.

Heck, Fed didn't even win this title in the end anyway.

It's nice to see that he can still beat Novak, but he just did what other younger players also did: beat Novak in BO3. So, in hindsight, he simply joined the rest of the crowd.

Fed has to beat Novak in BO5 for this win to truly be meaningful and look back on it as the trigger Fed needed.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You can't be serious with this comment. Lol. Federer is 8-6 against top 10 opponents in Basel after playing it 19 times. Djokovic is 15-1 against the top 10 in Paris Masters after playing it 14 times with wins over players like Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka and Tsitsipas. While you are talking about who Djokovic played in finals you left out who he's actually been beating there and how often he plays top players. You're right there is no contest because clearly Paris Masters is a tougher and bigger tournament.
The 6 at Basel proves how tough it has been. Djokovic has rarely had tough many opponents at Paris masters, Fed in 2018 gave him a good match.

Murray didn’t even take a set, while Del Potro did and also managed 2 wins for example. Overall Paris is a weaker masters compared to likes of IW, Rome, Cincy, Shanghai. Basel should be taken into account for indoor success.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
The 6 at Basel proves how tough it has been. Djokovic has rarely had tough many opponents at Paris masters, Fed in 2018 gave him a good match.

Murray didn’t even take a set, while Del Potro did and also managed 2 wins for example. Overall Paris is a weaker masters compared to likes of IW, Rome, Cincy, Shanghai. Basel should be taken into account for indoor success.
He's played it 19 years, beat a 10 player 8 times and won it 10 times. Paris Masters is a 48 man draw and mandatory and Basel is a 32 player player and optional. It's not rocket science.

Whether someone took set or not is irrelevant since we are talking about who actually plays these events. Paris may be weaker in general compared to some other Masters but it is still a tougher tournament than Basel and has been for a long time.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
He's played it 19 years, beat a 10 player 8 times and won it 10 times. Paris Masters is a 48 man draw and mandatory and Basel is a 32 player player and optional. It's not rocket science.

Whether someone took set or not is irrelevant since we are talking about who actually plays these events. Paris may be weaker in general compared to some other Masters but it is still a tougher tournament than Basel and has been for a long time.
By your own data, Federer has played top 10 opponents 14 times in 19 years, and Djokovic 16 times in 14 years. That shows better field. However, when you look at the finals opponents and in general the winners of those two tournaments what immediately jumps at the observer is the higher quality of the winners/finalists in Basel. As we well know, the current game is very top heavy, so the business end of the tournament has increasingly greater importance in deciding what is what. Paris is an M1000 for a reason, but one have to see that it is a mandatory event (as opposed to Basel). Basel is as big as they get on that level, and arguably the finals competition for the title is maybe stronger than in Paris. Don't get me started on the fact that Federer actually played Del Potro when he was outside of the top 10. I guess that is one way to skew the impression of the competition by using the "top 10" stats". We know how formidable opponent Del Potro is in Basel, so beating him in the finals without Del Po being "top 10" means a bit more than "just another win".

:cool:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
By your own data, Federer has played top 10 opponents 14 times in 19 years, and Djokovic 16 times in 14 years. That shows better field. However, when you look at the finals opponents and in general the winners of those two tournaments what immediately jumps at the observer is the higher quality of the winners/finalists in Basel. As we well know, the current game is very top heavy, so the business end of the tournament has increasingly greater importance in deciding what is what. Paris is an M1000 for a reason, but one have to see that it is a mandatory event (as opposed to Basel). Basel is as big as they get on that level, and arguably the finals competition for the title is maybe stronger than in Paris. Don't get me started on the fact that Federer actually played Del Potro when he was outside of the top 10. I guess that is one way to skew the impression of the competition by using the "top 10" stats". We know how formidable opponent Del Potro is in Basel, so beating him in the finals without Del Po being "top 10" means a bit more than "just another win".

:cool:
It would be 17 times in 14 years for Djokovic if he didn't have a walkover against Tsonga in 2011 with injury. The bottom line is Paris Masters is a mandatory tournament for the top players and Basel is not. So, Paris will usually have a tougher field with more players unless a fluke happens when everybody is injured and can't play which won't happen often or at all. Del Potro in 2017 is just one instance and you could extend it to the top 20 and Djokovic is 20-3 against the top 20 at Paris but won it 5 times out of 14. Federer is 18-8 against the top 20 in Basel yet won it 10 times. That is the difference between a 500 tournament and a Masters.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Come on man, even the most ardent Federer fan should not be claiming that Basel is a tougher tournament to win than the Paris masters. There's no comparison, unless you just want to be silly and stir things up around here. I don't know why folks are even debating this.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
It would be 17 times in 14 years for Djokovic if he didn't have a walkover against Tsonga in 2011 with injury. The bottom line is Paris Masters is a mandatory tournament for the top players and Basel is not. So, Paris will usually have a tougher field with more players unless a fluke happens when everybody is injured and can't play which won't happen often or at all. Del Potro in 2017 is just one instance and you could extend it to the top 20 and Djokovic is 20-3 against the top 20 at Paris but won it 5 times out of 14. Federer is 18-8 against the top 20 in Basel yet won it 10 times. That is the difference between a 500 tournament and a Masters.
So, part of your argument boils down to the status of the tournament instead of the actual difficulty. Noted.

You cannot simply "extend" the logic simply on Del Potro's then ranking, because Del Potro is not any "top 20 opponent" (in fact, I a kind of said that he isn't just any "top 10" opponent in Basel either, so, intentionally or not, you took what I said and twisted it 180 degrees). Your stats still doesn't deal with the main point in my post which was that the finals competition is stronger in Basel, and for a top heavy game that means a lot.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
So, part of your argument boils down to the status of the tournament instead of the actual difficulty. Noted.

You cannot simply "extend" the logic simply on Del Potro's then ranking, because Del Potro is not any "top 20 opponent" (in fact, I a kind of said that he isn't just any "top 10" opponent in Basel either, so, intentionally or not, you took what I said and twisted it 180 degrees). Your stats still doesn't deal with the main post in my point which was that the finals competition is stronger in Basel, and for a top heavy game that means a lot.

:cool:
The status of the tournament, mandatory for top players and larger field, is directly correlated to why one is tougher then the other. It's straight forward and black, and white.

Which is completely irrelevant. Federer has played two top 10 players in the same tournament two times in Basel. Djokovic has done it 5 times and beat three top 10 players to win in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The only time he didn't beat at least two top 10 players to win was this year. So narrowing each tournament to just finals is very trivial. Paris Masters > Basel. There should be no one even arguing otherwise.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The status of the tournament, mandatory for top players and larger field, is directly correlated to why one is tougher then the other. It's straight forward and black, and white.

Which is completely irrelevant. Federer has played two top 10 players in the same tournament two times in Basel. Djokovic has done it 5 times and beat three top 10 players to win in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The only time he didn't beat at least two top 10 players to win was this year. So narrowing each tournament to just finals is very trivial. Paris Masters > Basel. There should be no one even arguing otherwise.
You convinced me. Numbers are all there is to competition. No need to discuss anything further.

:cool:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Jack Sock won Paris Masters.



Basel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Paris based on this alone.
Players missing from 2017 Paris Masters: Federer, Nadal (withdrew from QF), Djokovic (out for season), Murray (out for season), Wawrinka (out for season), Nishikori and Raonic. This more so proves how weak fall 2017 was more than anything or how less than stellar the field was in 2017 altogether when Sock finished the year at #8 and never made it past the 3rd round of a Slam.
 

PeoplesChamp

Semi-Pro
Players missing from 2017 Paris Masters: Federer, Nadal (withdrew from QF), Djokovic (out for season), Murray (out for season), Wawrinka (out for season), Nishikori and Raonic. This more so proves how weak fall 2017 was more than anything or how less than stellar the field was in 2017 altogether when Sock finished the year at #8 and never made it past the 3rd round of a Slam.
Sock isn't the only fluke win. It's the home of flukes. Henman, Berdych, Ferrer, Khachanov etc.
 
Top