smoledman
G.O.A.T.
At what point though do we say - enough is enough and we require the W?
Through with Federer!
- Thread starter SublimeTennis
- Start date
At what point though do we say - enough is enough and we require the W?
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Oh boy you don't want to go there. ************* is a disaster area....
wangs78
Legend
OP - this is why tennis at the highest levels is largely a mental game. Especially when it comes down to matches between players like Fed/Djoker/Rafa. Fed has, what, a 5-1 record against Murray in Slams. Against Djokovic, Fed has several very painful matches in recent years. Sure he won in the 2011 FO and 2012 Wimby, but the matches that stand out are when he lost in five sets 2 years in a row in the USO SFs when he had match point. And of course last year in the Wimby final. So of course Fed has much less confidence against Djokovic who is #1 and having a dominant year, than against Murray who is just not in the same league as these two. The tentative play, the poor tactics / decisions during the match were reminiscent of what we saw in '08-'09 when Rafa was owning Fed. But look, in my view, Fed has ALWAYS had more pressure than Rafa and Djokovic. I know many of us say that Fed, with 17 Slams, has nothing else to prove, which is 100% true. But this is a man whose quest in life has been perfection and to win tennis's greatest prizes. And for the last 7-8 years he has been facing younger rivals and for him, the clock has been ticking so naturally he will put a lot of pressure on himself to win. Unfortunately the pressure affects his play. Credit to him that he has ALWAYS made these matches competitive and great for the fans. I don't care if he didn't play 100% yesterday - he had me on the edge of my seat, cheering for him, willing him on. Of course I was disappointed with the outcome, but you know what, I always get up for a Fed much. Not so for Rafa or Novak. If you want to stay in bed the next time Fed is in a Slam final, feel free, but my guess is that even after your rant, the next time Fed gives us hope that he may yet clinch another Slam trophy, we will drop our work, personal and family commitments and be on our couch for 3-5 hours, absolutely glued to the screen, yelling and cheering and crying. And that, is why Fed is the GOAT to me.
I still think it was not a case of Fed not being 100% but instead he was overplaying. There were a few moments where I observed a slight shift in mentality when Djoker made some unbelievable shots in the first set. From then on the first serves, forehand errors and (oh no) backhand shanks returned. I maintain Fed could have won the match if he just maintained a composed approach - instead he went well into the red which drew out easy errors. Instead of playing the winner shots, he should have forced Joker to make those ridiculous ones. Statistically, Fed would be up and if not, then well, Joker probably deserved it.
abuhamza77
New User
Dude. Chill out with your emotions. You're starting to sound like Novak did after losing the second set. He lost to the #1 player in the world in 4 close sets in a final. No shame in that. Novak is in his prime. Most of the guys that came in with roger are now in the broadcast booth.
Exactly...I'm a huge Fed fan and have been for many many years....as much as I would have loved to see him win, the reality is he didn't and he didn't because he was beaten by a better player who played better tennis on the day. Djokovic is fully deserving of his title and he's certainly piecing together another incredibly dominant season having won 2 Slams and all but 1 M1000 tournament (which he skipped anyways).
After watching the Murray match there's no doubt in my mind that Fed still has the ability to win Slam number 18 however he will probably need a bit of luck to do so....something you don't typically require when you are the best in the world.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
Like I said, it did feel like Fed mentally bottled it somewhere starting in the 1st set. Played so passive, even more so on the important points, kept tanking the return games, serve kept going down. And he'll never admit to bottling a match, so we'll have the ****s gloating about how Fed was at his best and Djokovic is just better than him.
Also I think there were rumors that his back was troubling him since around RG, but idk.
The only thing I know is there is no way Fed of SF would lose more than a set to Djokovic who wasn't even playing as good as last year.
Also I think there were rumors that his back was troubling him since around RG, but idk.
The only thing I know is there is no way Fed of SF would lose more than a set to Djokovic who wasn't even playing as good as last year.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Federer's playing with house money here - these are the days to appreciate great matches within tournaments from him, and great sets/sequences against the big dogs (like the second set tiebreaker in this most recent final).
He'll probably have some more really great/fun deep runs at the slams that end with a loss to a top player in the QFs or beyond, and those should now be enjoyed for what they are, rather than treated as disappointments.
He'll probably have some more really great/fun deep runs at the slams that end with a loss to a top player in the QFs or beyond, and those should now be enjoyed for what they are, rather than treated as disappointments.
That's a very interesting take on it. So you think Federer should have just played the way he was playing, but within himself, and if Djokovic keeps on coming up with the incredible gets, then so be it and he deserves it? I think the opposite, he should have forced the issue and came into the net more, and if he's passed left and right so be it, he still might mount enough pressure to put together more breaks. And that keeps the legs fresher and minimizes Djokovic's age advantage.
I think what you suggest is a good strategy for a younger Federer (still the shotmaker) vs the same Djokovic, but that's when he had more stamina.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Yes, I'll go further and say that today represented Edberg's influence on the wane (since Federer far too often returned to his pre-Edberg comfort zone of failed baseline bullying), and Becker's influence on the rise (since Novak's serving was just so exceptional and clutch).
No way I'd ever consider Djokovic the better player; better tennis on the day, yes, but the better player, no. (Although certainly knocking on the door of 1st tier all time greats now).
That's been an infuriating aspect of Federer's game for a number of years. I wish he'd commit to just accept the risks and live and die by the sword, rather than reverting to baseline percentage tennis. He just doesn't have the stamina for that anymore.
That said, I'd never say I'm through watching him. He is simply the greatest and by far the most enjoyable player to watch. I watched this match in a live replay even though someone spoiled the match for me before I saw it, so I watched it knowing the wrong player won.
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
I love that line!
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Fickle.
Maybe just fick!?How can anyone be disappointed with being #2 in the world and still reaching slam finals at nearly 34 years of age?
It's a good result for his age, no question, but fans want a magical run and #18.
#17 at Wimbledon 2012 was a bit of a magical run and showed without a doubt that Federer is a better grasscourt player than Djokovic, but another magical run would be great.
I think we actually agree. What I mean is he became more passive in his net approach. He would make sure it was an absolute ripper before he'd even approach the net. A few good passing shots by Joker probably contributed to that. But I think statistically, Joker would have came off second best, trying to make all those passing shots. It puts the pressure on Joker even if Joker can gain some confidence by making a portion of the passing shots. What I mean by Joker deserves it it if he can come up with ridiculous passing shots for the whole match, then there is not much Fed can do. But in my viewing, for every ridiculous passing shot Joker did, he also gave up a lot of overheads that Fed ate, hit the net, missed the mark or Fed volleyed back. Statistically, it looked like Fed could have kept it up. It takes more energy and focus to keep hitting those passing shots than net play imo.
As it stands Djokovic is a better player than Fed....not quite sure how you can argue that, the man has won 2 Slams this year and every M1000 event he's contested! In terms of all time greats I certainly have Fed well above Djokovic but that's not what I was referring to...I was saying that based on current form, as it stands on Monday 13th of July 2015, Novak Djokovic is a better tennis player than Roger Federer. Unfortunately Fed's absolute best tennis and his ability to produce it on a consistent basis is behind him....which for a 33, nearly 34 year old is to be expected.
I suppose I unfortunately have no choice but to agree that he is currently better, although certainly not greater and not a better player comparing peak to peak.
I fully expect him to win several more Majors, but it's entirely possible that he, like Nadal (thusfar), will decline faster than Federer and that Federer may be the better player in a couple of years.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
People including myself made a mistake overestimating Federer's level of play based on SF win against Murray. Let's face reality here, Djokovic is a level or two above Murray this season and overall much better player than him. Federer can certainly "GOAT" against Murray in future too but against Djokovic it's wholly different story. I'm sure Federer can beat Djokovic in BO3, but equally sure he will not beat in GS tournament in future.
On second thought, I just can't stomach that. Would you say Lendl is the better player than Borg? No, you wouldn't. Djokovic should never be considered the better player than Federer, unless and until he proves over his career that he is. He's just playing better now because he's younger.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I think there's a difference between "It would be nice" and "screw him for not winning it"
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
But this didn't have to be about staying strong for 5 sets. Fed lost the first set because he could not hold serve twice after getting to 4/2. He choked. Novak was tight. He could easily have been up 2/0 in sets, needing only one more set.
Fed and Novak both get tight when the play each other because they know that if their level slips, the other is going to win. That almost happened to Novak today.
But each time Novak wins the nerves will be less in future matches, and that's what will most likely happen now because of the age factor.
You can go all the way back to the beginning of the open era and you will be hard pressed to find almost 34 year-old players who do not at least partially fold in the finals of slams. Age is a HUGE part of it.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
In a sense yeah you're right. He's been playing with "house money" the moment he won slam #15 back in 2009. Even though it's so frustrating to go 3 years w/o winning a slam, it's more about the struggle now.
AngieB
Banned
Last edited:
Vanhool
Hall of Fame
#HowDareYou?! #Mommy!AngieWasMeanToMe!
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Reality disagrees with all 3 of you then
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/r-federer-vs-a-murray-earthshattering-stats.538107/
roysid
Legend
I understand the huge disappointment of OP. This is so sad because Roger is close to 34 and it was his last great chance of winning slam.
Regarding the match, Fed could have done some thing better like going for more winners on both fh and bh. Turn around more on novak's second serve. In general play more freely.
But he was always going to lose because Novak just capitalizes on his weaker backhand side so well. Any rally, hits on backhand corner and gets an advantage. Any serve..gets a weak return. And also he returned so well..he was returning most of Roger's first serves when it mattered.
I don't see a way Roger beats NOvak now in important matches.
Regarding the match, Fed could have done some thing better like going for more winners on both fh and bh. Turn around more on novak's second serve. In general play more freely.
But he was always going to lose because Novak just capitalizes on his weaker backhand side so well. Any rally, hits on backhand corner and gets an advantage. Any serve..gets a weak return. And also he returned so well..he was returning most of Roger's first serves when it mattered.
I don't see a way Roger beats NOvak now in important matches.
ProStaff forever
Rookie
I believe you nailed it on the spot: Even with Fed getting everything right yesterday, his chance of winning is so slim that it's only a 1-2 point difference. That would mean every net tape or hawkeye is on Fed's favour.
For me personally if Fed managed to hang on with Novak for 3 sets of tie breakers I'd personally consider him my personal champion of yesterday's Wimbledon even if he ends up losing all 3 tie-breakers.
SublimeTennis
Professional
That's simply not true. Look at the stats if your eyes can't see it. Against Murray he got 85% of first serves in, 85%, got it, that has NOTHING to do with Djokovich. Against Djokovich he only got 67% first serves in! THAT'S HUGE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DJOKOVICH, you understand when you serve it has nothing to do with your opponent. In addition, he had 15 unforced errors, again Djokovich it was 35! Now one can make the case that Novak forced Federer into these, but not if you watched the match, Feds at the net, whole court open, he hits it a two feet long, another time into the net, telling you, I mean I sympathize, fear is paralyzing, he simply chocked. And no this doesn't take away from Novak, he's a very good modern player, but he didn't win, Federer lost. Murray would have beat Djokovich the way he played Friday, watch the two match's on YouTube and it's just obvious.
I'm not fickle, if he gets beat no big deal, but when he chokes out of fear it's very frustrating, many are upset, then you hear him "Oh I played well", the numbers don't agree. My friend watched the Semi's with me and couldn't believe it, Fed five feet off the court hitting a cross court winner on the line, THAT is the Fed of '04-'07, but he chugs on for money, just very frustrating, I wish players would be honest, Becker is right when he says these guys are liars, it's political correctness that's aggravating, I'm not saying you have to be a Fabio but at least tell the truth, say you played crappy, as I say stats don't lie
SublimeTennis
Professional
Yea I mean no one likes Monday mourning quarterbacks, but, and I'll admit it, I only watch tennis for Fed, it's just me personally and I have a right for my tastes, I'm just not interested in Novak, Murray or Nadal, I don't enjoy watching 30 shot rallies over 6 hours, it's just disappointing, perhaps not fair for me to say so, but get up at 5am all excited, Fed's sure going to get 18th and 8th, only to watch that garbage, I mean at least go for it, if you watch it and they mentioned it also he wasn't moving normally, how many times was he on his heels just getting it back in play, and yes much of that could have been Djokovich.
I always say, and train my son the same way to not play the points, put the score out of your mind, if you do that you play free, I'm a 6.0 player and in the past if it was an event, could be anything a girl your dating watching the match, I'd choke, that's how the mind works, we go off fear "Oh I should kill this guy but WHAT if I lose", that kind of thinking makes you lose. Serious I didn't see anything special from Novak, I've seen him play better but his serve was dialed in, no way you beat a Djokovich with that low of a first serve percentage, and basic forehands going into the net one after another, so frustrating, ESPECIALLY after his play against Murray. Murray said "I'm better than I was in 2012, and he is, he played INSANE, he passed Fed at the net, he was pumped and played off the charts, he was in the Zone, but so was Federer. I teach my son to play aggressive and free, the most important thing is to not worry if you get passed, you just keep going and if you are better you win. So when I say "I'm through", I mean I'm not going to get excited, not get jazzed, no bets on Federer, he's just too inconsistent, you never know which version will show up, the one against Murray that was close to his prime years or the timid do nothing of Sunday.
My comment was simply based on the reality at the minute...obviously everyone is welcome to their opinion however the stats and pretty much everything else including current rankings suggest that Djokovic is right at this moment a better player than Federer...and everyone else in the world.
I completely agree that unless Djokovic can win another 8 Slams minimum before he retires (assuming Fed remains on 17) then history will remember Fed as being the superior player over the duration of their respective careers.
As I said, Fed was beaten by a better player who also played better tennis on the day. Fed has had a wonderful career, however at 33 we need to accept that others will catch up to him and in some instances (although not very many at present) will overtake him.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
Take me to your alternate universe, it sounds fun in fantasyland. The better player won. They could play that match 100 times in 2015 and Djoker would win 80-85% of em. That's exactly why most of the knowledgable posters on these forums correctly predicted the result of the match: djoker in 4. Meanwhile the Fedboy legion whipped themselves into a frenzy thinking that one match against Andy (lol) signaled that Doc Brown had flown in with 2006 Fed riding shotgun in his delorian.
Fed is 34. He is unquestionably the GOAT. The are solid arguments that his peaks in '04 and '06 were better than Djoker's peaks in '11 and '15. BUT In 2015 Djoker is the objectively superior player. That's why he's 1 and Fed's 2 (Feds actually 4th in points for 2015). That's why Djoker has 3 slams since last year's Wimby and fed hasn't won a slam since 2012. Come back to reality. No 100% version of Fed is favored against Djoker in 2015. If this was 2006, it's a different story. But it ain't 2006 anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's almost like some of these people don't understand the concept of "forced" unforced errors. Djokovic's level of play is ridiculous right now. If it weren't for the loss to Stan, we'd be talking about how he's sure to be the first man to get the calendar slam since Laver. Even IF Fed only showed up 85% on the day of the Final, 85% of Federer is a heck of a lot to deal with. Insinuating that less than 80% of Fed, at 34, could take Djokovic playing the best of his career (better IMO than 2011) to four sets... is madness.
As for being DONE, if you're done now, that's your issue. That's big time fair-weather fan stuff. I was enthralled by prime Fed, and got to see the end of it. I got to see him surprise us one last time in 2012. I got everything I wanted out of being a fan of his, and even if what we said somehow magically affected his retirement (it DEFINITELY doesn't) I think we would owe it to him to let him decide how his career ends. If he wants to go out a champion, great. If he wants to go out like Lleyton Hewitt, great. He's still a champion. No amount of playing past your "best by" date will take the number 17 away from him.
And to be fair, the fact that you're arguing that you're done with an almost THIRTY-FOUR year old tennis legend who is capable of spanking a former champions at his most effective age is a bit silly. I thought Andy would take Roger out in four. To make another final, and get our hopes up for one last lifted trophy at Wimbledon, was beyond what I thought he could do to START with.
As for being DONE, if you're done now, that's your issue. That's big time fair-weather fan stuff. I was enthralled by prime Fed, and got to see the end of it. I got to see him surprise us one last time in 2012. I got everything I wanted out of being a fan of his, and even if what we said somehow magically affected his retirement (it DEFINITELY doesn't) I think we would owe it to him to let him decide how his career ends. If he wants to go out a champion, great. If he wants to go out like Lleyton Hewitt, great. He's still a champion. No amount of playing past your "best by" date will take the number 17 away from him.
And to be fair, the fact that you're arguing that you're done with an almost THIRTY-FOUR year old tennis legend who is capable of spanking a former champions at his most effective age is a bit silly. I thought Andy would take Roger out in four. To make another final, and get our hopes up for one last lifted trophy at Wimbledon, was beyond what I thought he could do to START with.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
Deleted.
Feather
Legend
I think you got it wrong. It was 76 % first serves in , and he won 84 % of the first serve points. I mean in the Semi Final
Similar threads
