That's interesting, what's the story with you and Stich? I used to like his game a lot (him, Pete, Korda were the true all-courters I enjoyed watching most), though he whined too much for my taste about the line/close calls and other stuff on the court.Yeah later on I became a fan of Becker (and Pete) and left my Agassi-fandom after that stupid book mostly. However, this is less for patriotism, still hate Stich to this day.
Final was the best offense, sf was better defense
Maybe I'm using "level" in a way that you would use "form". Basically my contention is that you don't really get better or worse at tennis over a short period of time as a professional player. If you're capable of having a day where everything is a cm out instead of a cm in then that's baked in to the cake every time you go out there. Just because on one day more land in than out doesn't mean your "level" (as defined as your likelihood to beat a given player) is actually any better. There are times where that's obviously not true like Sinner's level was obviously way worse in the final than the quarters at Cinci but generally I think that holds.
I think you're being super harsh here. Like by what possible standard is Rome 2011 not a good match? It's an incredible match.
Super underrated match I agree. Djokovic fans underrate Djokovic because he lost so they want to say he sucked and Fed fans underrate Fed because he's old so he couldn't have played a near peak match. This match was great though and I agree the overall standard is better than 2014.
I figured I was missing one. I agree that was a good match. But I find it tough to include most of the other matches not already listed. And a few of the ones that do make the cut are matches I’m not personally fond of like the Madrid 2009 SF.
I mean his 2012 run is up there too but yeah I’d probably put the 09 SF-F as the top two.
Absolutely, I’m a big fan of Oly 08 too and it’s not on the list. I think I understand/agree with @Third Serve point on broad strokes—post 2014 there were many lopsided Djokodal matches—but I have issues with the finer minutiae from the post.
Epitome of arrogance. Repeatedly mentioning in interviews that he is more talented than Becker (even after their careers) as well as more handsome (only halfway in jest). He also talked all the time (stressed) that he has hundreds of interests outside tennis and that tennis is not his life and tried to come across as an intellectual (while at the same time he tried to depict Becker like a peasant). On top of that as you already mentioned a head-case and whiner.
It’s annoying how Big 3 politics get in the way of the good tennis. As a a Fed fan, are a lot of the 2011-2012 matches vs Djokovic frustrating to watch? Sure. But there’s so much to appreciate—Fed still having near prime movement, utilizing slice/variety a lot more frequently than his peak, heavy attacks with the FH, and moments of Clutcherer (whether at 2012 Wimb, RG 2011, the first two sets of USO 2011, etc).
Its commonly agreed after 2013 the rivalry took a dip tbf
Fantastic level at USO and YEC as well. I will always believe that USO SF vs Fed is underrated—Novak showcased some great serving and great volleying (weirdly enough?) but Federer was just brutal with the FH. I think 2008 AO is probably top 3 Djokovic at AO too.
Oly 08 is one I actually thought about for a bit but I’m not super high on that match. The third set is the only good one IMO—first was a bad start from Djokovic and Nadal was leaking errors in the second. I place it in the Canada 2013 category of not bad but vastly overrated. Queens was a decidedly better match.
I agree that Queens is better—I just think there’s a bit of a conflation of Djokodal’s style and level of play. Even if you and I both agree that Fedal’s shotmaking is more appealing to the eye, it doesn’t necessarily make it higher quality.
Your first paragraph is taken, but it doesn’t really factor into my analysis. Wasp came away with much the same take in his report of that match and he’s considerably more appreciative of Djokovic’s game than I am.
Fair enough on the first point, and I don’t mean to argue that you’re viewing these matches in a biased or unfair way. I think I just really appreciate when Djokodal are more aggressive with their play.
I can agree with this. It's definitely the weakest of their RG matches barring the 2008 masterclass/disasterclass. I come away considerably more impressed by the 2005 SF, but maybe that's because the major patterns of play hadn't fully developed. It's a splendid match that makes me a little bummed 2006 wasn't up there with it since Fed went into that match in better form.
Love the 2005 SF, Fed’s FH let him down a bit in key junctures but I love how free-flowing he was. Seemed a lot more cautious/tentative in 2006 and 2007. Fed wasn’t exactly in full flight in the 2006 SF and kind of got bailed out by Nalby’s injury, so I don’t know if I’d say he went into the 2006 final in better form. He played really well at Hamburg in 2005 + his RG match vs Gonzalez.
Well I meant the whole tournament really. He was coming off the heels of the Rome 2006 final when he entered RG. I agree the 2006 SF wasn't quite up to par either.
It’s kind of frustrating how much better Fed’s non-RG matches were compared to his RG performances. It makes it really difficult to assess his clay greatness since his non-RG matches stack up with some of the best ever, but he didn’t really bring the goods at RG as often. If we’re just considering great all-time Fed on clay:
Well I don't think his RG results were totally out of step with his normal clay results.
It would work as a promotional tool for both tours/the sport in theory but as a competition it is weird when men have their female partner as a ”ball and chain”
It's like that with Djokovic too. If you look at the clay masters and then his performance against Nadal it looks like underperformed. I think the reality is there's A) A lot more pressure at the FO, particularly when you're going for a NCYGS or the career slam B) Nadal is much harder to beat at the FO, the court is just bigger which gives more space to turn defence into offence to find those angles etc...
Old Laver held his own against a young Borg. He was never overrated.
Hamburg is definitely much better for his game, but the gap is still insane. A lot of it comes down not just to the surface, but his movement/timing being better at the pre-RG tournaments. Feels like he plays with a weight off his shoulders a bit.
Laver was 5'9, Rosewall was 5'7, and Schwartzman is 5'6
so the old guys would do a bit better than this, even being maximally pessimistic
even with today's professionally maintained grass being primarily ryegrass, growing in clay-heavy soil, and appearing in Europe, it is still the surface that exhibits the most variation in characteristics. old grass was even more different in all of these characteristics between venues and continents, so this angle just doesn't make sense to me
Yes better than all three
No way.
One of his better posts
One of his better posts
Brilliant how Nadal sat them down more at the FO
yes way Ted!
Federer was in excellent form going into his 2005 French Open semi final against Nadal. Federer had won 11 matches in a row (and 28 sets in a row). Nadal had won 22 matches in a row himself.
I still read quite often the "Djokovic was a nobody before 2011" story which is definitely false. A scrub ain't winning a slam the YEC and a bunch of M1000s lol
On this website sure, but in general i still read this quite often outside of TTW.
