What went wrong at 40-15 for Federer?

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Are you really going to say you don't remember any walkover or retirements in Djokovic's draws? Remember you are under oath. ;)
Everyone gets walkovers and retirements, Fed and Djoker included.

But Nadal's draws (maybe with the exception of Wimbledon) especially so at USO have been something else altogether, and it is not just once or twice.
 

Mark-Touch

Professional
It didn't even have to be an ace. A first serve would still give you better chances of winning the point. His first serve % was 63% and he won 79% points on first serve.
That's why I said on the first page:

"
If your first first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got three left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got two left! (second serve)
If your next first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got one left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you're still at deuce !!! (second serve) "

IOW, Fed shouldn't have viewed the score as 40-15, "two shots to win this".
His mindset should have been FOUR shots to win this, NO SWEAT!
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
Everyone gets walkovers and retirements, Fed and Djoker included.

But Nadal's draws (maybe with the exception of Wimbledon) especially so at USO have been something else altogether, and it is not just once or twice.
Please go back just 4-5 years and see the walkovers & 1-set retirements Djokovic got, far more than the Fed & Rafa.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
That's why I said on the first page:

"
If your first first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got three left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got two left! (second serve)
If your next first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got one left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you're still at deuce !!! (second serve) "

IOW, Fed shouldn't have viewed the score as 40-15, "two shots to win this".
His mindset should have been FOUR shots to win this, NO SWEAT!
OK you should stop now because this just makes what happened at 40-15 even harder to digest...

I hope someone from Fed's team sees this.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
The catharsis is getting looong. We are still not over it, aren’t we?:(
I am sure that there are more than one hundred alternative universes in which this didn’t happen.
By the way, I’m not being judgmental with anyone...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn

Mark-Touch

Professional
The catharsis is getting looong. We are still not over it, aren’t we?:(
I am sure that there are more than one hundred alternative universes in which this didn’t happen.
By the way, I’m not being judgmental with anyone...
I agree with you, but in many ways, the hurt and sting wouldn't be nearly as bad had Fed lost in straight sets.
Losing a winnable match has got to suck the worst!
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
What happened he got over excited probably already planing his celebration and so on. Big lesson for all the players and future players it isnt over until it is over.Djokovic did nothing special on those match points and after DEUCE.It was in Fed hand and he blew it by losing concentration and than get tight in 40-40 after not playing any off the match points well. If Djoko really hit amazing winners on match points and so on it would have been easier to handle for Fed and his fans.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
It didn't even have to be an ace. A first serve would still give you better chances of winning the point. His first serve % was 63% and he won 79% points on first serve.
So? That's a match average of about 50% service points won via a first serve. The equivalent of a couple of coin flips isn't improbable enough for me to start taking a dump on him from a 10th storey window.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Please ignore the troll, don't waste your time responding to it.
I asked about the two points after getting to deuce from 40-15 , any thoughts on them ? (I cannot recall how he lost them).
Fed did not get the placement on the serves. Novak hit strong returns. Novak after a couple of rally balls hit the ball to the FH corner and Fed could barely reach. Both the shots hit the net.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
That's why I said on the first page:

"
If your first first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got three left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got two left! (second serve)
If your next first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got one left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you're still at deuce !!! (second serve) "

IOW, Fed shouldn't have viewed the score as 40-15, "two shots to win this".
His mindset should have been FOUR shots to win this, NO SWEAT!
May be he tried to put a first serve but got placement wrong ? At least the 40-30 point looked like that for me. He wanted to go down the T but put the ball right in Djokovic's FH swing.
 

Mark-Touch

Professional
May be he tried to put a first serve but got placement wrong ? At least the 40-30 point looked like that for me. He wanted to go down the T but put the ball right in Djokovic's FH swing.
Yes that certainly was a possibility but there are two problems...

I said he had 4 chances.
That shot where he missed the T and was a little off was his 3rd chance.

He didn't go for a BIG serve on chance 2.
He just hit an average topspin second serve that sat up ready for Djoker to push him back.
So he wasted that 2nd opportunity.

On chance 3, where he missed the T, Djoker still could only push the return back.
The ball was a sitter inside the baseline. Fed should have either gone for a big inside out shot or a one-two punch in the same direction,
to Djoker's BH, or even a drop shot as others have suggested.
Instead he looped a sitter to Djoker's FH, which he had no problem getting to, or putting away (thanks to Fed forgetting to move to the center of the court).
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Nothing went wrong. Roger won that match... Novak must give back his title and trophy to Federer. Roger deserve to win that match, novak sucked
 

AceSalvo

Legend
That's why I said on the first page:

"
If your first first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got three left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got two left! (second serve)
If your next first serve isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you've got one left! (first serve)
If your next 'first serve' isn't an ace or puts Djoker in trouble, you're still at deuce !!! (second serve) "

IOW, Fed shouldn't have viewed the score as 40-15, "two shots to win this".
His mindset should have been FOUR shots to win this, NO SWEAT!
Fed just lost the concentration to serve on the good spots suddenly after the 2 aces. Absolutely no clue what caused it. Mental fatigue to pull it off (after 4 hrs) or gone off the boil. But he played fantastic after being broken :eek:. I wish Fed would actually tell us what happened in his head at 40-15 instead of us second guessing for the rest of our lives.
 

Fintft

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was breadsticked today, and he won the match. He seemed to be a punching ball in the second set?
And why do you think that is?

The 3 commentators on ESPN all thought he suffered an injury after the fall and JMac never believed he fully recovered (hence his weak ROS).
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed just lost the concentration to serve on the good spots suddenly after the 2 aces. Absolutely no clue what caused it. Mental fatigue to pull it off (after 4 hrs) or gone off the boil. But he played fantastic after being broken :eek:. I wish Fed would actually tell us what happened in his head at 40-15 instead of us second guessing for the rest of our lives.
It is not going to make the loss any less comforting. If he can summon an ace every point, wouldn't that what he would do every time.

He served like 25 aces for the match and he got 2 in that game. Seems pretty clutch to me.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
And why do you think that is?

The 3 commentators on ESPN all thought he suffered an injury after the fall and JMac never believed he fully recovered (hence his weak ROS).
Didn’t notice that, really.
Good that we have new inputs every day.
Hope we find some more in the next weeks. Either to be more sorry, or more relieved.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Fed just lost the concentration to serve on the good spots suddenly after the 2 aces. Absolutely no clue what caused it. Mental fatigue to pull it off (after 4 hrs) or gone off the boil. But he played fantastic after being broken :eek:. I wish Fed would actually tell us what happened in his head at 40-15 instead of us second guessing for the rest of our lives.
Wouldn't undermine the effect of that fan screaming 'come on Roger' on MP which made him reset his swing and probably come out of his serving zone and start 'thinking' again.
 

Fedalic

New User
I think its a case of what goes around comes around. Remember the way he made his speech in the 2009 wimbledon? Now it came back onto him, good thing Djokovic handled it with a class in his speech.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
That's why I said on the first page:
...
Yep. If you have multiple match points in a row you go for gold on the first one imo. To me this means not just going for an outrageous, unlikely winner but something which you haven't done or which bucks patterns. For example, on Fed's first one when he had the forehand off the return he could have junked a drop shot back crosscourt. Or chipped it cc and charged. What he did instead is pick a high percentage rally ball but then charged in on it - too late to see he hit it terribly. It would have put him in a terrible position even if he hadn't come into the net.

At least in a situation like that when you've committed and hit an approach shot you don't come in the middle, you dart right and make them hit the much more difficult down the line shot. He didn't make life difficult for Djokovic at all on that point, and may as well have just fed him a gimmie.
 

TheIntrovert

Hall of Fame
It wasn't that bad, it's not like he dumped DF's in the net. What he did would have got the job done against anyone else.
Most notably in 2012. The second match was almost exactly the same as the match point he had against Murray. Just that Novak was too good.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Fed just lost the concentration to serve on the good spots suddenly after the 2 aces. Absolutely no clue what caused it. Mental fatigue to pull it off (after 4 hrs) or gone off the boil. But he played fantastic after being broken :eek:. I wish Fed would actually tell us what happened in his head at 40-15 instead of us second guessing for the rest of our lives.
Yep, the 11-all game on Djokovic's serve Federer played an amazing string of points from being 40-0 down. Seeing that game again you'd think he just found a burst of energy until he gifted a soft slice backhand error over the baseline to lose the game eventually.
 

TheAssassin

Legend
This thread has got to be the most entertaining read about ifs ever. :D I mean, what were the chances Federer would lose from that position? Like 3%? Not to mention the Djokovic lightning already struck him in New York a while back.
 

Sunny Ali

Professional
But he did not go away. Held serve for the rest of the match. Had two breakpoints. I must admit the missed halfvolley in the breaker was a bit heartbreaking. But that is Federer. He has to an extent solved the Nadal riddle. Does he have time to do the same with Djoker..?
No, he does not.

Nadal is like Kilimanjaro. Djokovic? More like Mount Everest.
 

Rabe87

Professional
The most difficult thing to do is to swing an oversized for your game racquet correctly vs so many obstacles in a Wimby GS final at 38.
97 square-inch is oversized for Federer?! He had to change because of the shanks, and judging by the last point on Sunday, it hasn't eliminated those issues..
 

Rabe87

Professional
At what cost ? :( They should find that fan and ban him from all future tennis matches.
The salt is strong with this one.

You do realise Nole had to deal with Pommy ferals squealing at him all throughout the 5th set.

Honestly, get a brain.
 

Mark-Touch

Professional
This guy (Magic Man) certainly is exciting but he needs to get his facts straight.
First of all, Fed didn't make any errors on his MP's ???
Huh?
U.S. Open, semi-final against Djoker, second MP, he doesn't clip the net and have the ball bounce out?
If he doesn't make that error he wins the match with a clean winner!

He's right about Fed's irritated look. 100% right. Fed should have been relaxed on the MP's, instead he looked irritated.
He doesn't have 'emotional toughness'. True.

However the Magic Man didn't have a problem with Fed's strategy on the MP's!!!
Just Fed's lack of 'emotional toughness'.

Someone bring him over to TTW and have him read my post here on the first page of this thread!
 

hipolymer

Professional
I think this guy has got it. Fed is not mentally weak, but has a character "flaw" of wanting to win flashily and making his opponent crumble under his strategy of rushing the opponent. He doesn't want to win by tactically outmaneuvering his opponent, because that would imply that his tennis talent isn't enough to win.

Look at the USO 2009 final. He was basically toying with DelPo in the first two sets, laughing after points as if it were an exhibition and as if his sole purpose was in entertaining the crowd with constructed points, points constructed weeks beforehand. It was as if he were the composer and DelPo his faithful musician following the music that Fed himself created.

But then something didn't go according to plan. Fed started getting that all-too-familiar sour face at the tail end of that second set. Something wasn't entirely peRFect enough. The symphony was all highs, no lows. It needed more dissonance and conflict. It needed antithesis to the constructed Fed-thesis. It needed DelPo coming back. And so Fed may have subconsciously allowed DelPo back into it, for the good of tennis. He rushed the net as if to say, "well either I win fast or this match becomes interesting, win win situation". But his subconscious didn't account for the possibility of DelPo peaking and seeing the ball like a basketball.


And then in the 5th set, Fed again gets broken by rushing the net, eerily reminiscent of the recent Djokovic match point.

When the match is boring, Fed rushes the point. When Fed is under pressure in a 5th set, he will often rush the point. It's as if he's incapable of grinding out a point even if it will be a winning strategy, because it's beneath him.

In the AO '05 SF against Safin, he played the matchpoint at 6-5 with a S&V and then tweener, and then smiled as if it were just a regular point.


And then after Safin played a good point to get a 7-6 lead, Fed gets the sour face yet again, as if to say, "he shouldn't be doing that; it isn't going according to the line notes". Immediately after he shanks the backhand. At the final game of the match he looks completely dejected after realizing he just allowed peak Safin to manifest.

It will be interesting to see how Fed will deal with this for the future, if he will conquer his demons (assuming he is even aware of his problem in the first place). Judging by his post Wimby final interview though, it seems as if he will continue with this playstyle of trying to construct the peRFect tennis fan's match and trying to entertain the crowd.
 
It didn’t help the Mirka was holding her head in her hands as if she were terrified he’d blow it. She obviously knows him better than anyone in the world, but would a little fist pump and “let’s go!” hurt?
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Interesting comparison. One difference is that the serve wasn't as good against Djokovic as it was against Murray/the return is a bit deeper from Djokovic than it was from Murray.

I personally think that regardless of where Federer served, he should have stuck around for one of the match points and made Djokovic work more. A serve and volley play might have been a good tactic (given how much success he had with that) as well.

I've seen some posters suggest that Federer should have gone for all "big serves" (first and second). The thought did cross my mind, but has he ever tried doing that in a match? 40-15, fifth set at Wimbledon does not seem like the right time to try a new tactic one has never used before. Federer is about rhythm and accuracy on his serve, not bombing the second. Sampras did sometimes hit his first serve as a second serve if I remember correctly (and served more doubles), but he was a different type of a player, comfortable with different tactics on faster surfaces.

Does anyone remember Federer hitting his first serve as a second a la Sampras?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Interesting comparison. One difference is that the serve wasn't as good against Djokovic as it was against Murray/the return is a bit deeper from Djokovic than it was from Murray.
The interesting thing in those two vids is not the serve. It's the first forehand - and his feet positioning. On the Murray one he lined up the the inside-in forehand from the get-go and hit it well from about arm-pit height.

On the Djokovic one he lined up to hit an inside-out forehand (look at his feet) but then changed his mind (to be tricky?) and went inside-in. He hit it from about waist height and it landed not far past the service line making it a basic gimmie for Djokovic. Almost closed stance forehands like that are super easy to mistime and overspin them which is what happened here. It could be nerves of the moment or indecision but which ever it is he may as well have just fed him a ball, that's how routine it was.

IMO, when you recognise you've miscued an approach shot so badly - which he certainly would have - and have committed to coming in you should dart right immediately instead of hedging your bets and covering the middle of the net. That way you get the most likely reply, or force them to go for the much harder DTL on the run.
 
Last edited:

sportsfan1

Hall of Fame
Djokovic used the Rafa style reverse FH over the head finish for hitting the passing shot - more height and spin therefore less risk, compared to Murray who finished his FH wrapping around the shoulder. Another difference is Djokovic plays more calm and better in MPs down situations where other players get conservative.

Federer had no business coming to the net off that approach shot, even a serve and volley would have been a better choice than that. Or he should have hit it cross court high and deep to the BH. But then he tried that in USO 2011 and it hit the net cord and flew out.

This could have been a great confidence boost for Federer, to really gain belief against Djokovic at slams and erase memories of the previous bad losses. But now it's hard to see him winning a slam when having to face Djokovic, so someone else such as Thiem or Nadal would have to take him down for Federer to have any chance.
 
Last edited:
Top