The Weird World Of Men's Tennis: Djokovic's Wimbledon Finales...

OhYes

Legend
The guy beats RF - inarguably Wimbledon GOAT - in all three finales, AND beats Rafa twice, in a finale (and a semis)...

... Yet actually loses to Sir Mandy in straight sets in 2013.

The same Sir Mandy who lost all his Wimby encounters vs Rafa and Roger.

0-3 vs Rafa
0-2 vs Roger

That's 0-5 vs those two.

WTF?

Is Sir Mandy the luckiest multi-Wimby champ ever? He won two titles there but only had to win one match against the Big 3.

One measly, meiserly match.

It is a weird world after all...
Linesmen have been making some strange calls at the start of the match on which Novak didn't react. When his light bulb came on, he started asking challenges on perfectly legitamate shots wasting all of them a bit too late.
After that first set he just lets go Brits have their so long waited day of fame.
 
You know exactly how...

He beat Rafa at FO, pushed him another time to 5 sets, beat him 6-7 times on clay compared to RF's two times. RF never beat him at FO. That's why.
You know exactly how
He needed a half corpse of nadal on court to take him down at FO. 2015 nadal wouldn't have stand a chance against anyRG version of roger from 2005-2012 as well. Federer pushed rafa to brink in BO5 clay matches as well. Plus, performance against nadal isn't the reason why any player deserves the RG title more than the other. As by that logic, soderling deserves it the most.
Federer & Djok both deserve RG title almost equally. The only thing in favor of roger is that he never blew one against a non-nadal opponent
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray is not better on the grass than Djoker. Also, Nadal is not better than Federer on the outdoor hard surface, although he leads 8:6 in balance. Federer is more successful on outdoor hard surface drive than Nadal. And Djoker is more successful on the grass than Murray. H2H on the grass shows that in terms of matchup, Djoker for Murray suited on the grass.

Djoker didn't get the opportunity to return Murray's losses from 2012-13. I believe that if they met in the Wimbledon 2015 final, Djoker would win.
You can believe what you wish but that's just speculation. I'm simply going with the current facts (like I always do). Djokovic is certainly more successful at Wimbledon but, on grass overall, Murray has more titles (8-6 and please don't bother saying anything other than Wimbledon doesn't count) and, as I've already pointed out, owns their current H2H.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Oh you mean that silly logic that goes like:

A beat B, and B beat C, and C beat D, and coz D beat E A is better than E.

That semis is so LEGENDARY I actually have to Google it...

Wait...

(1 minute later...)

Birdy???

You're kidding, right?

That's Andy's claim to 2016 fame?
Fact remains that Murray beat a former Wimbledon finalist in 2016 (and YES that finalist put away both Federer and Djokovic to reach that final) so give it a rest with your "Ooh he only beat Birdy" take or you might have some awkward explaining to do for Nadal's 2010 Wimbledon draw. Plus he beat the guy who beat Federer. Not Andy's fault if Fed couldn't be arsed to get past Raonic.

Djokovic only ever got straight setted twice in a Slam final (only other time was by Fed at 2007 US Open, his maiden final) and only ever lost 1 final at Wimbledon and that was at the hands of Murray and if you don't like that, tough!
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
You can believe what you wish but that's just speculation. I'm simply going with the current facts (like I always do). Djokovic is certainly more successful at Wimbledon but, on grass overall, Murray has more titles (8-6 and please don't bother saying anything other than Wimbledon doesn't count) and, as I've already pointed out, owns their current H2H.
That Murray has more tournament titles is a relevant argument, but this factor, together with H2H, is not enough for Murray to be recognized as a better grass player than Djoker, because in Wimbledon the difference between them is considerable! And it's nothing against Murray, more grass titles than Djoker have also Connors or Hewitt, who are also not close to Djoker's success in Wimbledon. And if you want to demur again that Djoker never beat Murray on the grass, then I say in advance that Sampras never beat Krajicek on the grass. Don't overestimate H2H.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You know exactly how
He needed a half corpse of nadal on court to take him down at FO. 2015 nadal wouldn't have stand a chance against anyRG version of roger from 2005-2012 as well. Federer pushed rafa to brink in BO5 clay matches as well. Plus, performance against nadal isn't the reason why any player deserves the RG title more than the other. As by that logic, soderling deserves it the most.
Federer & Djok both deserve RG title almost equally. The only thing in favor of roger is that he never blew one against a non-nadal opponent
Prime/peak/shmeepists don't seem to understand that if a player has a weak phase - barring injury it is not an excuse. Whose fault is it Rafa was **** in 2015? Rafa's fault.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Your comparison is with Djokovic and he's 2-0 vs Djokovic on grass (both of which occurred at Wimbledon even if one was in a different event).
So Mandy IS in fact WEAKER on grass than Novak. 2 is less than 5.

Yet he beat him.

The Weird World of Pro Tennis.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fact remains that Murray beat a former Wimbledon finalist in 2016 (and YES that finalist put away both Federer and Djokovic to reach that final) so give it a rest with your "Ooh he only beat Birdy" take or you might have some awkward explaining to do for Nadal's 2010 Wimbledon draw. Plus he beat the guy who beat Federer. Not Andy's fault if Fed couldn't be arsed to get past Raonic.

Djokovic only ever got straight setted twice in a Slam final (only other time was by Fed at 2007 US Open, his maiden final) and only ever lost 1 final at Wimbledon and that was at the hands of Murray and if you don't like that, tough!
Trying to re-write history, are we?

You know very well RF got injured in that semis... Lucky for Murrayfans, coz now he'd be still at 2 slams from 12/13...

As far as Birdy... Don't even bother trying. You're just sinking quicker in the quicksand of yer own making.
 

Eren

Professional
together with H2H, is not enough for Murray to be recognized as a better grass player than Djoker, because in Wimbledon the difference between them is considerable! Don't overestimate H2H.
Tell this to some of your fellow Djokovic fans who consider Djokovic to have the greatest peak on grass and consider him to be a better grass courter than Federer, Sampras and Borg.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Trying to re-write history, are we?

You know very well RF got injured in that semis... Lucky for Murrayfans, coz now he'd be still at 2 slams from 12/13...

As far as Birdy... Don't even bother trying. You're just sinking quicker in the quicksand of yer own making.
The only quicksand round here is the one you're sinking in yourself. We get you don't like Andy but trying to justify your dislike by creating silly threads like this one is doing you or your pet peeve no favours whatsoever. Give it up mate.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The only quicksand round here is the one you're sinking in yourself. We get you don't like Andy but trying to justify your dislike by creating silly threads like this one is doing you or your pet peeve no favours whatsoever. Give it up mate.
Who's "we"? Your local Murrayfanclub?

I am not against Sir Mandy, which is why I address him as befits nobility.

I was very pleased when he vultured his 1st slam title in 2012 when Novak started cramping in the 5th set.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Who's "we"? Your local Murrayfanclub?

I am not against Sir Mandy, which is why I address him as befits nobility.

I was very pleased when he vultured his 1st slam title in 2012 when Novak started cramping in the 5th set.
Lol....poor Novak, fittest player on tour, started cramping, boo hoo hoo, wait while I bring out the world's smallest violin. I'm surprised you didn't mention the hurricane that was blowing only on poor Novak's side of the court!. And that Wimby final when everybody knows that poor Novak does not like to play in hot sunshine either. They really should only schedule him to play indoors! :p

I'll say this for you, you're always good for a laugh round here (if not much else).
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
You spent most of your OP talking about how Djokovic beats everyone at Wimbledon but lost to Muzza, my point is maybe beating a guy in 3 finals who is in his mid 30s is not all that impressive to begin with.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that Sir Andy has had "When the cats away" fortunes for a good few of the most major moments of his career, but as the saying goes you can only beat what is in front of you. The cat was (put) away at Roland Garros in 2015 too and Novak still couldn't finish the job.
That's what I thought this thread might be about from the title. Murray has never lost to Djokovic on grass. Amazing he has five Wimbledon titles given Murray's amazing grass statistics and consistent Wimbledon results. Did not like Roddick's win in 2009 one bit and wished Murray had made that final instead of the sickening one where Fed almost let Roddick win before waking up.:sick:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
True, I thought it was strange that Novak Djokovic had 3 Wimbledons. To have matched Borg on 5 is just bizarre.
Scary thing is young players save maybe Mad Lad are little threat at Wimbledon. Djoko is the 2020 favorite, so six seems very likely before the end of his career.:unsure:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Which is why he is 1-5 vs Big 3 at Wimby?

He is BETTER on grass than 5-time champs?
Facts:
1. Federe 2002-current. 55.1% points won on grass, 73.3% on serve points, 38.5% return points
2. Murray 2008-current. 54.3% points won on grass, 70.1% on serve, 39.5% return points
3. Djokovic 2007-current. 54.5% points won on grass, 70.2% on serve and 40.5% of return points
4. Nadal 2006-2011. 53.6% points won on grass, 71.1% on serve and just 37.7% on return

Fed ahead. Murray very close to Djokovic. Nadal clearly in last place for grass points won.
 

Eren

Professional
Lol....poor Novak, fittest player on tour, started cramping, boo hoo hoo, wait while I bring out the world's smallest violin. I'm surprised you didn't mention the hurricane that was blowing only on poor Novak's side of the court!. And that Wimby final when everybody knows that poor Novak does not like to play in hot sunshine either. They really should only schedule him to play indoors! :p

I'll say this for you, you're always good for a laugh round here (if not much else).
Just let them be lol.

Murray is simply a very hard match-up on grass for Djokovic for whatever reason.
It's not only 2-0 in matches, it's freaking 5-0 in sets. He didn't even come close to winning any of those matches.
 

Eren

Professional
Facts:
1. Federe 2002-current. 55.1% points won on grass, 73.3% on serve points, 38.5% return points
2. Murray 2008-current. 54.3% points won on grass, 70.1% on serve, 39.5% return points
3. Djokovic 2007-current. 54.5% points won on grass, 70.2% on serve and 40.5% of return points
4. Nadal 2006-2011. 53.6% points won on grass, 71.1% on serve and just 37.7% on return

Fed ahead. Murray very close to Djokovic. Nadal clearly in last place for grass points won.
Why didn't you start with 2003 for Federer lol. 1999-2002 Federer was very inconsistent, could play amazing and pathetic in the same week.
 

Eren

Professional
Linesmen have been making some strange calls at the start of the match on which Novak didn't react. When his light bulb came on, he started asking challenges on perfectly legitamate shots wasting all of them a bit too late.
After that first set he just lets go Brits have their so long waited day of fame.
Pathetic for letting it just go. Perhaps Murray was just too GOATY during 2012 Olympics - Wimbledon 2013. He owned Freddy and Djoko.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Why didn't you start with 2003 for Federer lol. 1999-2002 Federer was very inconsistent, could play amazing and pathetic in the same week.
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.;)
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
Just let them be lol.

Murray is simply a very hard match-up on grass for Djokovic for whatever reason.
It's not only 2-0 in matches, it's freaking 5-0 in sets. He didn't even come close to winning any of those matches.
Every tennis player has some hard match-up. Even also Pistol Pete. Sampras on the grass won no set against Krajicek.
 

N01E

Semi-Pro
You can believe what you wish but that's just speculation. I'm simply going with the current facts (like I always do). Djokovic is certainly more successful at Wimbledon but, on grass overall, Murray has more titles (8-6 and please don't bother saying anything other than Wimbledon doesn't count) and, as I've already pointed out, owns their current H2H.
You can believe what you wish but that's just speculation. I'm simply going with the current facts (like I always do) (funny thing is that's exactly what emotional people are saying). And you're obviously very emotional and desperate to somehow put Murray in front. Is Vilas more successful on clay than Borg to you? And don't you think that 2 matches are too big of a sample? Let's go even further and say that Delbonis owns Murray. Or even better Coric on clay, against whom Andy has yet to win a set.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.;)
But 2003 to current includes lots of years where Fed didn't win...
 

Eren

Professional
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.;)
Really, So if you took 2003-2007 or 2003-2009 for Freddy at Wimbledon then he is worse than Djokovic from 2011-2015? and worse than Nadal?

I have a hard time believing that, unless you meant something completely different.
 

Eren

Professional
Every tennis player has some hard match-up. Even also Pistol Pete. Sampras on the grass won no set against Krajicek.
I know, but don't say this to Sampras fans. You know how TTW works right? Sampras had an off-day and Federer is ALWAYS peak. Remember that.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Facts:
1. Federe 2002-current. 55.1% points won on grass, 73.3% on serve points, 38.5% return points
2. Murray 2008-current. 54.3% points won on grass, 70.1% on serve, 39.5% return points
3. Djokovic 2007-current. 54.5% points won on grass, 70.2% on serve and 40.5% of return points
4. Nadal 2006-2011. 53.6% points won on grass, 71.1% on serve and just 37.7% on return

Fed ahead. Murray very close to Djokovic. Nadal clearly in last place for grass points won.
These narrow %s mean nothing. It's what you win against the best, not while beating journeymen in the 1st rounds of Queens...
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
These 3 finals vs Federer will put Novak in the history books.

Next to beating Rafa in the RG final, it ranks as the most difficult challenge in tennis HISTORY.

I know of no other player that could have done it ( Rafa doesn't have the grass legs anymore since 2012, Murray is clueless vs Fed at Wimbledon) especially with all this crowd cheering for Fed like lunatics.

Yet he did it.

Mad respects to Novak (even though i don't particularly care for his game or persona). He proved his mettle 100 times over in those moments. The new iron man of tennis.
 
Last edited:

Meles

Bionic Poster
These narrow %s mean nothing. It's what you win against the best, not while beating journeymen in the 1st rounds of Queens...
It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.;)
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.;)
I think you mean in basics stats it's close between them. It's not close between a guy with 5 Slams and one with 2 Slams at Wimbledon though. Then when you delve a little further, Djokovic is 5-3 against Fedal on grass and Murray is 1-5. Djokovic is 5-2 at Wimbledon against them and Murray is 0-5. This shows Djokovic just has a higher gear he can go into and it's something more intangible that stats can't always capture.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I think you mean in basics stats it's close between them. It's not close between a guy with 5 Slams and one with 2 Slams at Wimbledon though. Then when you delve a little further, Djokovic is 5-3 against Fedal on grass and Murray is 1-5. Djokovic is 5-2 at Wimbledon against them and Murray is 0-5. This shows Djokovic just has a higher gear he can go into and it's something more intangible that stats can't always capture.
And that he's been quite lucky not to play Murray. ;)
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.;)
I repeat: tiny % differences prove nothing at all. Statistics only help when they show significant differences.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
:sneaky: I would have liked him to at least even the score with him at Wimbledon, but that's one thing it looks like Murray will have as bragging rights over him.
Well in two of the wins Murray in the other half of SFs. Murray basically injured (or not near his best after injury in 2014) for the other three.

Murray looks like he might have enough form building this year for them to meet at Wimbledon 2020 if the draw doesn't place Murray in the other half.:unsure:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I repeat: tiny % differences prove nothing at all. Statistics only help when they show significant differences.
1% of points won is a pretty massive difference over that many events/matches. Federe's 1/2% lead also sizable. It does not predict who would win match between players as some kind of gambling tool, but for example Nadal's points winning percentage is quite poor for the event for a slam champion. You can win with under 54% at the event, but generally a weak winner. Nadal's 2012-2017 Wimbledon runs pretty much show that was his weakest surface by far. So, not a tiny difference if you were betting on Nadal to win before the event from 2012 onward.;)
 

mika1979

Professional
The guy beats RF - inarguably Wimbledon GOAT - in all three finales, AND beats Rafa twice, in a finale (and a semis)...

... Yet actually loses to Sir Mandy in straight sets in 2013.

The same Sir Mandy who lost all his Wimby encounters vs Rafa and Roger.

0-3 vs Rafa
0-2 vs Roger

That's 0-5 vs those two.

WTF?

Is Sir Mandy the luckiest multi-Wimby champ ever? He won two titles there but only had to win one match against the Big 3.

One measly, meiserly match.

It is a weird world after all...
It was just the perfect storm. Epic semi against delpo followed by the crowd driving murray
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
1% of points won is a pretty massive difference over that many events/matches. Federe's 1/2% lead also sizable. It does not predict who would win match between players as some kind of gambling tool, but for example Nadal's points winning percentage is quite poor for the event for a slam champion. You can win with under 54% at the event, but generally a weak winner. Nadal's 2012-2017 Wimbledon runs pretty much show that was his weakest surface by far. So, not a tiny difference if you were betting on Nadal to win before the event from 2012 onward.;)
In tennis it's not how many points you win, otherwise a match would be played until whoever wins 100 points first. I.e. 100-91 could be a typical score. It's about the sets.

Tennis is about winning the important points, the clutch points. Those are the only points-related stats I am interested in, the rest is pretty dressing on various fanboy cakes...
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
In tennis it's not how many points you win, otherwise a match would be played until whoever wins 100 points first. I.e. 100-91 could be a typical score. It's about the sets.

Tennis is about winning the important points, the clutch points. Those are the only points-related stats I am interested in, the rest is pretty dressing on various fanboy cakes...
Those clutch points and breakpoints aren’t always consistent. The best measure in the long run is points. Points are by far the best barometer of a players general capability in The areas measured. Nadal was extremely clutch during 2015 2016 and look what that got him.;) Breakpoint performance shows something but in the end the players usually come back to the mean or very close for their career. So you are basically chasing your tail concerning yourself only with clutch points.:eek:
 
Top