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.
Thanks for your interest!
Of course this is very far from the truth, lol.
Roger Federer, closing on four decades on this Earth, unfurls yet another masterpiece!
Stunning the way that happens sometimes.
There's always next time, of course.
But still... guess that answers a few questions, eh?
Vile?
Vile?
Im just trying to put some ground under Fed fans feet. Do you think Fed gonna beat Novak in AO?
He doesn’t even need to win WTF first?Maybe if the court isn't blue clay. Then again, Fed did win Madrid '12 when wedgie and Screech were complaining, so you never know
Fed proved last night on a real court he's still the best in the world.
He doesn’t even need to win WTF first?
A court is a court, you cannot demand Fed has every court tailored for him.
AO 2020 using the same people as the one for Basel. No excuses for Fed not to win AO then?
Novak got more indoor HC trophies though. Unless you count Basel of course, but I have a feeling you count Basel as a master or something
We know Novak cares a lot, he wants that record, that’s his goal. He said so.
Yea, but there is a reason why he is so unpopular.
Talk to someone who cares about your crap.
What has that got to do with it?
Novak got more indoor HC trophies though. Unless you count Basel of course, but I have a feeling you count Basel as a master or something
40-15 USO und Wimbledon
That fast HC is that important is your opinion.
I guess some evil conspiracy is behind slowing down courts?
@TheGhostOfAgassi I didn't know this, so I Googled it and you are indeed right!
Yep. As a Fed fan, I can't say I feel that revenge has been had...the YO is so meaningless when compared to a major...IMHO.
You're right. Djoker was just solid in the Wimbledon final, not exceptional.
You've obviously also regressed in the logic department.
It looks as if you are suggesting that Federer only won because Djokovic didn't care. That Djokovic can decide at will when to win and when to lose. That's not how it works. Djokovic was outplayed yesterday. Federer was the better player by a mile. The beating he was receiving is what made him appear resigned. He was doomed and he knew it. There were plenty of reasons for him to care with YE#1, adding weeks at #1, tying Federer with 6 YEC, keeping the mental edge in the rivalry. He cared. He just tried to act like he didn't because he knew there was nothing he could do to stop the Fed Express because once it gets rolling, he's unplayable. Any mental advantage that Djokovic may have had is gone now. Apparently he never really had it in the first place. Federer looked forward to this match up more than Djokovic did. It showed with his dominance yesterday over the Serb. A proper beating. Damn right.
Djokovic knows that he was lucky to win Wimbledon. He should have lost in three or four sets, because Fed was the better player by some margin. But Novak is an ATG as well, so he managed to hang with him in three sets. And in the end, he played the big points better, that was Fed's mistake.
That’s so not true!
Of course. I also see a 40% difference in indoor big titles between Roger and Nole.
What I am suggesting is, Fed outplayed him in every aspect, but Djokers level never reached a high level except for some random shots here and there. Not saying Fed would not have beat him regardless. But I am saying Djoker was clearly not at his best.
Sometimes a match is simply out of a players control. Djokovic had no control and it was not because he chose that. Djokovic can care or not care until the cows come home. He's not beating that version of Federer on an indoor court. Federer when in the zone, is the superior tennis player.
How can you say that he deserved the victory, but at the same time shouldn’t have won that match?
How can you say that he deserved the victory, but at the same time shouldn’t have won that match?
What’s next, bringing wood racquets back?
Qualitywise he shouldn't have won, because he played worse tennis than Roger. But he played better WHEN it mattered most, so he deserves it.How can you say that he deserved the victory, but at the same time shouldn’t have won that match?
What is your point then?
Are you serious? Read my posts and improve in reading comprehension.
Only 19 slams won w it.
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.
