very good analysis of 2018 Wimbledon Semi: Nadal vs Djokovic (from Quora)

[NoleFam]

Why would indoor conditions help Fed against Djoko if the latter is also great indoors?

Because on grass indoor conditions help the better server and Federer is a better server than Djokovic.

 

[Fedeonic]

Why would indoor conditions help Fed against Djoko if the latter is also great indoors?

Actually, Djokovic leads 5-4 in indoor hard matches (5-5 if you add the Wimbledon 2012 match), however, 2 of those wins were on 2013.
Fed has a 0,810 indoor ratio and a 0,824 on outdoor. Djokovic has a 0,783 indoor index and a 0,833 outdoor. Federer is clearly the better indoor player.

 

[mike danny]

And Djokovic is great outdoors and indoors while Nadal has only historically been great outdoors. Why should Djokovic agree with Nadal so that he can play in conditions that he wants and give him an edge? I would say playing indoors helped Federer against Djokovic in 2012 but I don't see many complaints about that. Nadal has gotten very lucky at times in his career with delays and conditions favorable for his game but this is one time that it didn't really work out in his favor.

Federer is also eaually good outdoors and indoors.

Indoors didn't favor him more than it favored Djokovic given that Djokovic is a tremendous indoor player too.

 

[NoleFam]

Actually, Djokovic leads 5-4 in indoor hard matches (5-5 if you add the Wimbledon 2012 match), however, 2 of those wins were on 2013.
Fed has a 0,810 indoor ratio and a 0,824 on outdoor. Djokovic has a 0,783 indoor index and a 0,833 outdoor. Federer is clearly the better indoor player.

I actually think it's pretty close between them on indoor hard and closer than the stats suggest. Federer has 6 WTFs and Djokovic has 5 WTFs. Djokovic has 4 Paris Masters and Federer has 1. However, Federer has been playing Basel since 2000 and has 8 titles and Djokovic only played it a couple of times and has 1 title. One of their indoor matches happened in 2006 Davis Cup. I think if it's indoor grass, Federer is a clear favorite because (1) he is the better grass court player and (2) he is a better server and on hardcourt it's more even.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer is also eaually good outdoors and indoors.

Indoors didn't favor him more than it favored Djokovic given that Djokovic is a tremendous indoor player too.

On grass, yes they would but on hardcourt no they wouldn't.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I actually think it's pretty close between them on indoor hard and closer than the stats suggest. Federer has 6 WTFs and Djokovic has 5 WTFs. Djokovic has 3 Paris Masters and Federer has 1. However, Federer has been playing Basel since 2000 and has 7 titles and Djokovic only played it a couple of times and has 1 title. One of their indoor matches happened in 2006 Davis Cup. I think if it's indoor grass, Federer is a clear favorite because (1) he is the better grass court player and (2) he is a better server.

It's actually 4 mate.

 

[NoleFam]

It's actually 4 mate.

Thanks for that. I get mixed up sometimes.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Thanks for that. I get mixed up sometimes.

Yeah, along with calling Nadal a legend indoors.

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah, along with calling Nadal a legend indoors.

LMAO. I may need to get my brain checked after that blunder.

 

[Sudacafan]

Why did Rafael Nadal lose to Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2018 semifinals?


Anurag Patankar, Data Analyst at Cognizant Technology Solutions
Answered Jul 15


"Before writing an answer on why Rafael Nadal lost, let me tell you, Novak Djokovic deserved the victory and he held his nerve well during all the match.

There are few reasons I want to list down because of which I feel Rafael Nadal lost :

1. Match was player under the roof : Men's 1st semifinal between Kevin Anderson and John Isner went on for 6 and half hours which delayed second semifinal. As a result, match was decided to be played under the roof giving Djokovic an advantage. Under the roof, conditions are usually humid than outdoors, ball bounces low, not good for Rafael Nadal's heavy topspins. However, I understand as 1st semifinal was delayed, no one can help but match had to be played under the roof. However, when match resumed on next day, why the roof was closed? What is this stupid rule to have same conditions like previous day. Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament and only when there is a rain or some other genuine reason, roof should be used.
2. Rafael Nadal's serve let him down : Djokovic started the match very aggressively leaving Rafael Nadal confused with his speed of strokes and dominated the first set and a half of second set. However, Rafa picked up from there and started playing really aggressive tennis. He was hitting down the line forehands and cross court backhands with an authority. He was so dominant in rallies and put Djokovic under constant pressure. He had a set point in 3rd set tiebreak on his own serve however he was unable to close it out. Simple reason, his serve isn't as good as Djokovic or other top guys. Rafael Nadal just doesn't get free points on his own serve, he hit only 9 aces as compared to 24 from his rival. Djokovic served clearly better especially to get lot of free points on his own serve, while Rafael Nadal was consistently serving under the pressure, point by point winning rallies, getting only few free points. With a better serve, he would have closed the 3rd set but he could not. Djokovic grabbed it despite Rafael Nadal dominated the entire set with his masterful striking on both the wings.
3. In the final set, Djokovic was serving 1st : In the final set, Nadal still served well to keep Djokovic away from breaking his serve for 8 games. However, when Rafael Nadal got break points opportunity during two games in the final set, those were only break points. When Djokovic got an opportunity in two games to break Rafa's serve, they were match points. Untimately putting more pressure on Rafa and Djoker closed it out at 10–8 in the final set.

Match was really close and could have gone either way. However, credit to Djokovic. Despite of Rafael Nadal giving his best effort, he showed nerves of steel and served really really well which made a slight difference in the end.

We can safely say now, Djokovic is back now to his very best. Congratulations to him for his 13th grand slam title. Not a good news for Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer fans however, this will only make tennis even more interesting in coming tournaments."

About serving first in the fifth set, I remember Nadal beat Federer in the famous 2008 Wimbledon final serving last. Not always applies. Is there any big data analysis of the subject?

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

About serving first in the fifth set, I remember Nadal beat Federer in the famous 2008 Wimbledon final serving last. Not always applies. Is there any big data analysis of the subject?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...first-in-the-5th-set-a-myth-or-a-fact.594939/

 

[TheFifthSet]

Wimbledon statisticians are known for their fairly lax approach to UEs, so the median reasonable count is probably a bit higher - still a strong ratio, considering the frequency of baseline rallies.

I am going to chart it myself eventually for tennisabstract, as I've been doing, which means in a couple weeks since I'd like to chart all four Wimbledon epics chronologically, and this is the last one as well as the best one. So you should have a detailed chart to consult with soon enough

Elementary, and I take that into account...73/42 still compares pretty favourably to Nadal's other big matches on grass,with the same charitable Wimby stat-trackers. Point being that it was not an error-ridden performance whichever way one looks at it, especially with Nadal playing as aggressively as he had in years.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

The more I think about it, the dumber the rule of 'roof stays closed' seems to me. Its an outddor tournament, the roof should be open whenever possible. If a match starts with no roof, they still finish the match with the roof closed if it rains, so where is the consitency in that?

That is because they are forced to.

The goal is to maintain consistency as much as possible in the conditions.

Starts indoors and it is an indoor match. Period.

Only if both players agree otherwise could it be changed. And it would have been stupid for Novak to do so.

 

[BringBackWood]

There has never been a match in professional tennis history that I am aware of in which a match started under a roof and finished outdoors...why should they start now?

When a match moves indoors, it is officially an indoor match, period. It is meant to be completed indoors.

A specious argument. I could equally say before a retractable roof, there had never been a match that started outdoor and finished indoor. The point is that this rule conflicts with what I thought was the starting principle of Wimbledon, namely that is an outdoor grass tournament, and therefore where possible & reasonable, the match should be played outdoor. Its like saying at RG, if we started playing in heavy conditions, the whole match must be played in same conditions. Its daft and kowtowing to player power.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic won the last point of the match.

Not morally

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal had to play indoors. Nadal didn't have clay in Wimbledon Nadal didn't serve first in last set.

Exactly, but whats a Nadal match if he isnt the Underdog? lol

 

[Deleted member 77403]

A specious argument. I could equally say before a retractable roof, there had never been a match that started outdoor and finished indoor. The point is that this rule conflicts with what I thought was the starting principle of Wimbledon, namely that is an outdoor grass tournament, and therefore where possible & reasonable, the match should be played outdoor. Its like saying at RG, if we started playing in heavy conditions, the whole match must be played in same conditions. Its daft and kowtowing to player power.

Show me one match, any match, in which an indoor match ended outdoors, and I will show you several matches where an outdoor match was completed indoors. They applied the rules that are applied to any tennis match...once a match is moved indoors, it is played to completion indoors. That is a tennis rule. Wimbledon ultimately is still a tennis tournament, and will follow the rules.

There has not been a single match in any grand slam, or anywhere else that once it went under the roof, it was then completed in outdoor conditions.

 

[BringBackWood]

Show me one match, any match, in which an indoor match ended outdoors, and I will show you several matches where an outdoor match was completed indoors. They applied the rules that are applied to any tennis match...once a match is moved indoors, it is played to completion indoors. That is a tennis rule. Wimbledon ultimately is still a tennis tournament, and will follow the rules.

There has not been a single match in any grand slam, or anywhere else that once it went under the roof, it was then completed in outdoor conditions.

Not that it matters since argument by status quo is no reason why it should remain so, but which matches before a retractable roof were finished indoors?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Not that it matters since argument by status quo is no reason why it should remain so, but which matches before a retractable roof were finished indoors?

How can you finish a match indoors, if you don't have a roof to make it indoors? Odd question.

 

[BringBackWood]

How can you finish a match indoors, if you don't have a roof to make it indoors? Odd question.

That is exactly my point. Pre a retracable roof no outdoor match was finished indoors. Is that reason enough for it not to happen? That is what you are arguing in the other direction. Common sense says that matches at Wimbledon should be played outdoors whenever reasonable & possible.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

That is exactly my point. Pre a retracable roof no outdoor match was finished indoors. Is that reason enough for it not to happen? That is what you are arguing in the other direction. Common sense says that matches at Wimbledon should be played outdoors whenever reasonable & possible.

But if you have paid millions of dollars to make a roof, then indoor tennis become a legit part of the tennis event. You don't just put a roof in and not use it...and the tennis rule book states, that once a match goes under the roof, it is completed under the roof. It is not moved back to outdoor conditions.

You don't see it happen at AO, when they close for the heat rule, and it starts to cool back down...they wait until the match is over to open the roof, despite sunny conditions outside.

 

[BringBackWood]

But if you have paid millions of dollars to make a roof, then indoor tennis become a legit part of the tennis event. You don't just put a roof in and not use it...and the tennis rule book states, that once a match goes under the roof, it is completed under the roof. It is not moved back to outdoor conditions.

You don't see it happen at AO, when they close for the heat rule, and it starts to cool back down...they wait until the match is over to open the roof, despite sunny conditions outside.

This was always the fear when the roof was proposed; it would be used as a convienience rather than being strict about using it only when neccesary. Numerous matches I've seen now where the roof is put over at the slightest rumour of rain, with none materialising.

Of course it is legit, but it should be used as sparingly as possible. Changing conditions is part of tennis, and that's even before we consider there was a whole night between the sessions!

 

[Deleted member 77403]

This was always the fear when the roof was proposed; it would be used as a convienience rather than being strict about using it only when neccesary. Numerous matches I've seen now where the roof is put over at the slightest rumour of rain, with none materialising.

Of course it is legit, but it should be used as sparingly as possible. Changing conditions is part of tennis, and that's even before we consider there was a whole night between the sessions!

There is no official rule stating that, because Wimbledon is unique in the sense that it is the only place that has a curfew. You will never get that circumstance of postponing play at any other slam, or other event. They only followed the only rule that is there...any match indoors must be completed indoors. They did nothing wrong...

 

[BringBackWood]

I'm not arguing to stop a match midway to open the roof btw.

 

[BringBackWood]

I know they did nothing 'wrong'. I just don't agree with the decision or the flimsy reason of consistent conditions.

 

[Sudacafan]

Show me one match, any match, in which an indoor match ended outdoors, and I will show you several matches where an outdoor match was completed indoors. They applied the rules that are applied to any tennis match...once a match is moved indoors, it is played to completion indoors. That is a tennis rule. Wimbledon ultimately is still a tennis tournament, and will follow the rules.

There has not been a single match in any grand slam, or anywhere else that once it went under the roof, it was then completed in outdoor conditions.

I am sure the rule says that. What we think we are discussing if it is reasonable or fair, under a new scenario (which I believe never happened before) that the roof was closed because of lack of natural light, and not because of bad weather, as when it normally occurs. The roof was closed for the first time for lack of light because it jeopardized the conclusion of the tournament on Sunday (moving it to Monday was an alternative that was avoided because it was unwanted). The roof would not have been closed for lack of daylight in any match of the first week, for example, because there was going to be enough time to compensate for that in future daylight sessions.
Now, why is it OK to close the roof when conditions change from no rain/daylight to rain/no daylight, and why not the other way round, after a suspension of one day?
The discussion is about the fairness of the rule, which we know exists and had to be applied. It is perfectly understood that tournament officials could not proceed otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

"muh roof"
- Quora

 

[Chadillac]

Terrible article. Gives very little credit to Djok.

Only Nadal fans care why he lost, such sore losers

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I am sure the rule says that. What we think we are discussing if it is reasonable or fair, under a new scenario (which I believe never happened before) that the roof was closed because of lack of natural light, and not because of bad weather, as when it normally occurs. The roof was closed for the first time for lack of light because it jeopardized the conclusion of the tournament on Sunday (moving it to Monday was an alternative that was avoided because it was unwanted). The roof would not have been closed for lack of daylight in any match of the first week, for example, because there was going to be enough time to compensate for that in future daylight sessions.
Now, why is it OK to close the roof when conditions change from no rain/daylight to rain/no daylight, and why not the other way round, after a suspension of one day?
The discussion is about the fairness of the rule, which we know exists and had to be applied. It is perfectly understood that tournament officials could not proceed otherwise.

Because with the exception of Wimbledon, you will not get this scenario anywhere else. The match will always be played to completion, it doesn't get suspended to the next day. Having a different rule for Wimbledon from the rest the tennis tournaments isn't right. Universally any tennis played indoors has always completed indoors, Nadal and Djokovic both knew this, the conditions were the same for both, and I see no reason why Wimbledon should have a unique set of rules to any other event.

 

[Fedeonic]

I actually think it's pretty close between them on indoor hard and closer than the stats suggest. Federer has 6 WTFs and Djokovic has 5 WTFs. Djokovic has 4 Paris Masters and Federer has 1. However, Federer has been playing Basel since 2000 and has 8 titles and Djokovic only played it a couple of times and has 1 title. One of their indoor matches happened in 2006 Davis Cup. I think if it's indoor grass, Federer is a clear favorite because (1) he is the better grass court player and (2) he is a better server and on hardcourt it's more even.

There's no doubt about that, so the Fedkovic indoor rivalry, as the overall rivalry is extremely close in numbers. Also Federer won Madrid indoor (a M1000) in 2006 and 3 titles at Rotterdam and 2 at Vienna, the two other big indoor 500s.

 

[DRII]

I know they did nothing 'wrong'. I just don't agree with the decision or the flimsy reason of consistent conditions.

yea, its fairly stupid!

this is an example of Wimbledon's often arbitrary rules actually going against its often arbitrary tradition!

foolish...

 

[DRII]

Because with the exception of Wimbledon, you will not get this scenario anywhere else. The match will always be played to completion, it doesn't get suspended to the next day. Having a different rule for Wimbledon from the rest the tennis tournaments isn't right. Universally any tennis played indoors has always completed indoors, Nadal and Djokovic both knew this, the conditions were the same for both, and I see no reason why Wimbledon should have a unique set of rules to any other event.

then why do they 'allow' the roof to be opened if both players agree???

don't cosign ridiculousness, Hitman.

if Wimbledon really cared so much about if it starts under the roof it must finish under the roof, they wouldn't allow it to be reopened at all!

 

[Jaitock1991]

Of course, Nadal's weakness is his seve not his return. But I wasn't talking about his performance at Wimbledon in general, but his match against Djokovic in particular. See above. What the hell is that "Nadal was lucky to push the match that long" when he choked the three set points of the third set tie-break and almost broke Djokovic in the 5th set.

I obviously can't speak for him, but I think what he's stating is based purely on statistics. No hate intended. As in if they played 100 matches with numbers like that, Djokovic would win in 4 more often than not. And in that sense Nadal was indeed lucky to push the match for as long as he did. But I agree with your points. At the end the match was as close as it gets and either player could have won it.

 

[RF-18]

then why do they 'allow' the roof to be opened if both players agree???

don't cosign ridiculousness, Hitman.

if Wimbledon really cared so much about if it starts under the roof it must finish under the roof, they wouldn't allow it to be reopened at all!

The rules are simple, it's there for everyone to see. They didn't make up the rule 10 minutes before the match. Nadal and everyone else knew what would happen. I don't know if you are that dense but of course there is an exception to the rule that in the end falls on the players. They are the ones who are out there playing, so their opinion matters the most in the end.

 

[DRII]

The rules are simple, it's there for everyone to see. They didn't make up the rule 10 minutes before the match. Nadal and everyone else knew what would happen. I don't know if you are that dense but of course there is an exception to the rule that in the end falls on the players. They are the ones who are out there playing, so their opinion matters the most in the end.

your posts keep eclipsing previous levels of redundancy.

congrats.

i don't care when they made the rule up, its a stupid effing rule!

period, point, blank.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I think it's to Djokovics credit that he has a better serve.

Yep, watching that match, I always thought that could well be decisive on grass, and it was.
Some people just don't realise how good Nole is on grass, it definitely favoured him over Nadal here.

 

[Rubens]

Federer lost his match. That's why Nadal lost his. End of story.

 

[RF-18]

your posts keep eclipsing previous levels of redundancy.

congrats.

i don't care when they made the rule up, its a stupid effing rule!

period, point, blank.

And you continue with marvelous counter arguments.

Yes, it's a stupid rule for you now. I never heard you complain about it before? Oh, what a coincidence.

6-4 3-6 7-6 3-6 10-8

sorry to tell ya that mate

 

[DRII]

And you continue with marvelous counter arguments.

Yes, it's a stupid rule for you now. I never heard you complain about it before? Oh, what a coincidence.

6-4 3-6 7-6 3-6 10-8

sorry to tell ya that mate

you're dishonetly concerned about the result of said match the rule affected, not the rule itself!

the rule is stupid!

Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament, steeped in tradition; yet they put in some stupid, arbitrary rule that if a match starts under a roof it must be completed under a roof 'unless both players say otherwise'

that is the definition of dumb and really disingenuous.

 

[helterskelter]

@Sport (and whomever else you were discussing this with earlier in the thread)

It's not just because of mental strength and a weak serve that Nadal often both faces and saves a lot of break points. It's because left handers start the game serving on the weaker side (deuce court) and end it serving on the stronger side (ad court), whereas for right handers it's the other way around. This means that it is technically harder for right handers to win break points against Nadal at 0-40, 30-40, or 40-AD [but not at 15-40] than it is for Nadal to win such break points against them, but it is technically easier for rights handers to earn break points against Nadal than it is for Nadal to earn break points against them. Really, tennis ought to do what squash does and allow left handers to serve from the left-hand side (ad court) first, if they choose. If there were such a rule, Nadal would face fewer break points but he would also save fewer of the break points that he does face.

 

[RVAtennisaddict]

1. When any match moves indoors, it stays indoors even if the "weather" "light" whatever it is that pushed it indoors, resolves. There are many reasons, but if they played outdoors and then a "freak" storm came up and they had to close the roof/delay... it makes no sense, especially when you are talking about TV time and sponsors. Not to mention that all of the scheduling stuff was blown apart the day prior...

I suspect that viewership/sponsorship and a predictable/guaranteed schedule drive the decision more than anything else. It is what drives at my meager USTA level, those forces are only greater at the pro level

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The rules are simple, it's there for everyone to see. They didn't make up the rule 10 minutes before the match. Nadal and everyone else knew what would happen. I don't know if you are that dense but of course there is an exception to the rule that in the end falls on the players. They are the ones who are out there playing, so their opinion matters the most in the end.

While I don't agree with the argument that @DRII is saying in this thread, he is not dense by any means and he is not salty either. He was one of the few who warmly congratulated me and the rest of the Djokovic fans in the immediate aftermath of that incredible fight between Djokovic and Nadal, which couldn't have been easy considering how tough of a loss it was for Nadal. He simply has a different point of view, and that is fine, as I said, I don't agree with it, but also don't agree with him being called dense because of his views.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

While I don't agree with the argument that @DRII is saying in this thread, he is not dense by any means and he is not salty either. He was one of the few who warmly congratulated me and the rest of the Djokovic fans in the immediate aftermath of that incredible fight between Djokovic and Nadal, which couldn't have been easy considering how tough of a loss it was for Nadal. He simply has a different point of view, and that is fine, as I said, I don't agree with it, but also don't agree with him being called dense because of his views.

Sorry to interject in your convo here; couldn't help but notice the mention of salt.

I'm just wondering about the congratulatory bit. Given that we're random fans on a message board, the practice has always struck me as slightly odd. But maybe not, particularly if it's a measure of social capital; a sort of down payment on anti-salt futures. What I'm driving at is that perhaps I need to rethink the very nature of sodium content amongst online tennis chat enthusiasts. Conventional wisdom might lead one to assign a given level of elevation based upon a history of imbecilic snaps. However, the latest progressive thinking seems to indicate that if one has "paid their dues" to the community's de facto leaders, there may in fact be a sort of mineral nirvana; a perfect composite balance.

Thoughts?

 

[RF-18]

you're dishonetly concerned about the result of said match the rule affected, not the rule itself!

the rule is stupid!

Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament, steeped in tradition; yet they put in some stupid, arbitrary rule that if a match starts under a roof it must be completed under a roof 'unless both players say otherwise'

that is the definition of dumb and really disingenuous.

Tradition or not, they've built a roof and they need to act accordingly. Seems perfectly logical for me that the same match shouldn't be played on two entirely different conditions. Indoors and outdoors are very different from eachother. So what I can see with this rule is that they don't think it's fair to the players to play on different conditions for the same match. Unless the players says otherwise. Other tournaments have this policy aswell. So it's not just Wimbledon.

Nadal said it even himself

‘if you start indoor, you have to end in the same conditions''.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/14/nova...f-situation-reaching-wimbledon-final-7716775/

 

[Subway Tennis]

Jon Wertheim wrote a very convincing piece last week suggesting the Wimbledon curfew could be removed as it may no longer be necessary.

This would eliminate these quandaries as they arise and bring Wimbledon in line with the other events where a decision about roofed or unroofed match continuation conditions never has to be made.

 

[donquijote]

Nadal was obviously injured. Otherwise he would never lose a match to Djokovic, especially on grass.

 

[ADuck]

That can't be used as an excuse. Nadal had a setpoint on serve in the third set and had a break point in the fifth set which he lost himself by rushing the net without any reason to do that. Nadal has only himself to blame for losing this match.

What excuse? That's just the reality of how the match played out. In the tight moments, Djokovic's serve was more effective than Nadal's ground game, an hence Djokovic won more important points, and the match.

 

[Sudacafan]

Because with the exception of Wimbledon, you will not get this scenario anywhere else. The match will always be played to completion, it doesn't get suspended to the next day. Having a different rule for Wimbledon from the rest the tennis tournaments isn't right. Universally any tennis played indoors has always completed indoors, Nadal and Djokovic both knew this, the conditions were the same for both, and I see no reason why Wimbledon should have a unique set of rules to any other event.

As I said above, the new thing in the scenario we had last weekend was not the roof being closed because of rain, it was because of lack of natural light taking place in the final instances of the tournament. Maybe the fair thing would have been to directly postpone the whole second semis for Saturday, and move the finals for Monday. Tournament officials used the roof for lack of daylight, compounded with taking the advantage to avoid finals on Monday, which would even have been a commercially sound action because of coincidence with the WC finals. The second semis was started knowing it was more likely that it wasn’t going to finish on Friday, if it wasn’t a straight sets match. The curfew even complicated things more. It was a “perfect scheduling storm”, a unique rainless storm actually. A lot of conditions took place together.

 

[mr tonyz]

I actually think it's pretty close between them on indoor hard and closer than the stats suggest. Federer has 6 WTFs and Djokovic has 5 WTFs. Djokovic has 4 Paris Masters and Federer has 1. However, Federer has been playing Basel since 2000 and has 8 titles and Djokovic only played it a couple of times and has 1 title. One of their indoor matches happened in 2006 Davis Cup. I think if it's indoor grass, Federer is a clear favorite because (1) he is the better grass court player and (2) he is a better server and on hardcourt it's more even.

It's actually 4 mate.

of Fed's WTFs on Indoor Hardcourt that is


Win 2003 Tennis Masters Cup, Houston Hard Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–0, 6–4
Win 2004 Tennis Masters Cup, Houston Hard Lleyton Hewitt 6–3, 6–2
Loss 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Carpet (i) David Nalbandian 7–6(7–4), 7–6(13–11), 2–6, 1–6, 6–7(3–7)
Win 2006 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Hard (i) James Blake 6–0, 6–3, 6–4
Win 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Hard (i) David Ferrer 6–2, 6–3, 6–2
Win 2010 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Rafael Nadal 6–3, 3–6, 6–1
Win 2011 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 6–3, 6–7(6–8), 6–3
Loss 2012 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic 6–7(6–8), 5–7
Loss 2014 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic walkover
Loss 2015 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic 3–6, 4–6

Edit. To stay on topic here. I am a little bit confused as to why everyone is stating that the Indoor conditions favoured Djoker? I understand historically that Djoker is by far the more accomplished of the pair in Indoor conditions (Djoker is the indoor GOAT is he not?), but when watching this match in isolation. Granted i only caught the match from the Third Set Tie-Break onward & it was obvious that Nadal was playing the role of the aggressor , changing angles going DTL , hitting his CC backhands really hard & flat .

Whilst Djoker seemed content to play the role of grinder/workhorse stallion from the back of the court. It's almost as though both of them swapped roles . So with Nadal now being the shot-maker & Djoker as 'The Wall' from that back of the court , you'd think the indoor conditions would favour Rafa's ultra-aggressive game plan . & it showed , Nadal looked like the much better player without the scoreboard necessarily reflecting it. It's as though Djoker "out Rafa'd Rafa" by grinding him down . I personally think Rafa lost the match on 0/8 conversions of the 3 set points in the third set Tie-Breaker & the 5 unconverted Breakpoints in the fifth set. Where Djoker went 2/4. I understand the Federer like Djoker BP conversion aside from these cherry-picked points , but to outdo Rafa (Djoker in this case) you need to kill him whilst you have him down & Rafa failed to close it out.

Indoor conditions notwithstanding , could Rafa had played any better apart from those key missed opportunities?

Just to throw more confusion into it , didn't the match start out in outdoor conditions? & Djoker won the 1st set outdoor? Then Rafa had set points in the third set & won the 4th set in indoor conditions? I am really struggling to grasp the entire "The closed roof & indoor conditions robbed Nadal of the match , or slightly gave Djoker the edge" mindset here .

I really fail to see the logic here ...

To conclude my thoughts here. Nadal quite often wins in a dirty fashion , this match was truly unique in that Rafa played a brilliant aggressive match & lost out by getting 'ground?' out by his nemesis.

I'll add W18 SF to the mantelpiece of

AO'12 F
FO'13 SF

 

[NoleFam]

of Fed's WTFs on Indoor Hardcourt that is


Win 2003 Tennis Masters Cup, Houston Hard Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–0, 6–4
Win 2004 Tennis Masters Cup, Houston Hard Lleyton Hewitt 6–3, 6–2
Loss 2005 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Carpet (i) David Nalbandian 7–6(7–4), 7–6(13–11), 2–6, 1–6, 6–7(3–7)
Win 2006 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Hard (i) James Blake 6–0, 6–3, 6–4
Win 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, Shanghai Hard (i) David Ferrer 6–2, 6–3, 6–2
Win 2010 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Rafael Nadal 6–3, 3–6, 6–1
Win 2011 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 6–3, 6–7(6–8), 6–3
Loss 2012 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic 6–7(6–8), 5–7
Loss 2014 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic walkover
Loss 2015 ATP World Tour Finals, London Hard (i) Novak Djokovic 3–6, 4–6

No he meant Djokovic had 4 Paris Masters.