What went wrong at 40-15 for Federer?
- Thread starter HowsItGoin
- Start date
Spencer Gore
Legend
He panicked. He's a human being who knows the guy on the other side of the net is slightly better than him. And he allowed the long-cherished dream of finally beating Djokovic in a Wimbledon final to get to his mind. Which was fatal.
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Its strange he could ace nicely to 40-15 under pressure from 0-15 then choke away remaining points. When the moment comes he always thought he won the match or done enough.It is not strange at all. Is Federer supposed to be nailing ace after ace to win service games? Two aces in one game is already an extraordinary high number.
It shows that Djokovic is great enough to win points at the slightest opening. Who would have thought or expected that from an ATG with 16 Majors to his name?
Surely he must know on every time he serve for a match he will face BP.
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Thats how he won under Paul annacone, his 2nd serve took alot of risk in Wimby 2012.
Even 2012 he was hitting his groundstrokes well.
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Novak didnt do anything special to break back. Its a total choke in the crucial moment thinking the match is over. As much as I like Federer he needs to change this mindset and treat the moment seriously with some safe and deep groundstrokes."The moment" is a random point that people like to skim through to show how smart they are. There is no "the moment" without all other "moments", or are we going to pretend that Federer would have been in a position to have those MPs if not for his extreme mental resilience to break back, or that the game where he was broken back wasn't decided on these two points alone etc etc?
Both points were won on a coin toss from both players. This time it went Novak's way. Good for him.
Ironically later Federer was in the same situation as Djokovic here again. When it was 11-11 and Federer had his 2nd break point, he had a look on a not that difficult forehand pass as well, but didn’t hit powerful enough and Djokovic guessed right. So he he saved with a great long volley (which I thought would go out for a moment) and finish with the Smash.
To the match points:
1) I think he could have (and should have) made the forehand. Not for a winner, but Djokovic wouldn’t have been in a good position then.
2) I don’t think he could have rached the passing shot. The approach shot was too bad.
I think for once it would have been the right decision to just play rallyes with Djokovic. Very likely he wouldn’t have avoided the error then. Two 20-shot-rallyes and Djokovic having to play the ball 20 times over the net at the match points would have been too much even for Nole I guess. Or at least at some point there would have been a VERY weak shot worthy to attack for Federer.
I think, a crucial pount was also the setpoint in the third set. Fed is a frontrunner, and he would have a substantial lead in the match for the very first time. So, depite his better overall stats, in reality, given the tennis scoring, he was always a bit behind, with the exception of this 8-7 lead in the fifth. Against Nadal he was always in front, despite losing 1-6 in the second. Now, tennis is game of patterns, and it is not new, that Federer has problems to close out a vital match. He lost 21 matches having had mps on his own. It happened against Djokovic before at USO, it happened against Delpo and Anderson last year, against Thiem this year.
On the other hand, Djokovic was far from his best, his serve and return well below par. Despite his mediocre performance he came through on guts and resilience. This should be frightening for his opponents. What will happen on his beloved hard courts, when his is really on form? As dangermen for him i only see hard hitters like Khashanov and Medvedev, or Thiem, who is more a grinder, but has a big forehand and could outlast him.
On the other hand, Djokovic was far from his best, his serve and return well below par. Despite his mediocre performance he came through on guts and resilience. This should be frightening for his opponents. What will happen on his beloved hard courts, when his is really on form? As dangermen for him i only see hard hitters like Khashanov and Medvedev, or Thiem, who is more a grinder, but has a big forehand and could outlast him.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
Just on match point, as a different strategy than he should normally choose! Because as consistent a player can be, how much more difficult is it to hit the court 20 times when you are match point down in a Wimbledon final. And also against someone who COULD attack at any short ball, so that you cannot play only safe. The pressure would have likely been too much, even for Djokovic.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
Sorry, I don’t agree here. Look at the 2011 US Open. One shot in "close your eyes, hit as hard as possible and just hope" style is easier than having to hit the ball 20 times, always with the fear it could be your last shot of the match. Normal strengths don’t matter that much in such a special situation. In a Wimbledon final on top of that, and in maybe the greatest one of all time.How much more difficult is to pull off a single passing shot (assuming that the approach shot is good), than to rally from the baseline (by a player who made a name by doing just that)?
I’m very sure in one of two chances for such a rallye, Federer would have received the error from Djokovic or a short ball to convert.
Rogfan
Professional
Only 2 men in the Open Era have lost Slam finals after having Championship Points and one of them, Coria, is overwhelmingly viewed as the greatest choker in the history of our sport. The other is Federer...
But sure, all points are created equal
Maybe you should go support someone who isn’t such a choker according to you. Be kind to yourself. Roger Federer isn’t going to be the man who will win the most in the next few years.
Feather
Legend
Only 2 men in the Open Era have lost Slam finals after having Championship Points and one of them, Coria, is overwhelmingly viewed as the greatest choker in the history of our sport. The other is Federer...
But sure, all points are created equal
Did he also have championship points on serve?
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Bottom line is Fedr went for broke in 2 MP and missed. 1st MP he shouldnt play so risky forehand, can hit to center of court. Keeping the ball in is better. 2nd MP Djokovic will go crosscourt 100% but wont be a deep shot as he is out of confidence, Federer could have loaded up the next forehand instead of net rush.
Fedr just need better training and tactics to solve the Djoker puzzle. Nadal is solved. He cannot try to say his overall game is good enough that he will be beating Djokovic.
Tennisbg
Professional
Fed rushed a little on his match points and got caught up in the moment, imo. He took a little more time to compose himself.
He was losing steam on his service by then too, so maybe that's why he served wide. On the second match point, it looked like he wasn't fully committed to the net approach, came in a split second too late and Novak just had that extra little bit more room with the court angle to pass.
Credit to Novak, tough on Roger.
Great effort by both.
He was losing steam on his service by then too, so maybe that's why he served wide. On the second match point, it looked like he wasn't fully committed to the net approach, came in a split second too late and Novak just had that extra little bit more room with the court angle to pass.
Credit to Novak, tough on Roger.
Great effort by both.
He lacked conviction at just about every crucial stage of the match. On his break point in the 1st set he played a beautifully constructed point, then missed a simple mid court passing shot to break that he would make 19 times in 20. In the 1st set tie break he seemed to be changing his mind on his forehands, trying to go inside in rather than his preferred inside out resulting in a slew of errors. He missed an easy shot at 5-3 in that breaker doing that from memory. At break point at 11-11 in the 5th he had a relatively simple forehand pass that he didn't really rip with Djokovic at net, allowing Djokovic to make the volley then shank the smash away for a winner. This was a heartbreaking loss instead of what should have been his greatest victory.
After the first serve was unsuccessful he had to deal with a very good return, so he a kind of pressed to re-establish his control of the point, which didn't pay off. The second MP wasn't entirely of his choosing: Novak drew him in, so he had the choice to either go for a net rush or try some sort of difficult half-volley. He chose the first but the execution of the approach shot wasn't good enough against someone like Novak.
Bolded: he was losing the sharpness of his whole FH side by then, not only his serve. Many people don't even comment on that, despite of it being obvious. The fatigue definitely caught up with him, so he was looking for shortening the points where he could. One can see how he was willing to risk more for a bigger reward too.
I think he held every subsequent service game after he was broken to 15. Yes he was slowing, but no more than his opponent. He was simply crippled by anxiety at the vital moment.
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
After the first serve was unsuccessful he had to deal with a very good return, so he a kind of pressed to re-establish his control of the point, which didn't pay off. The second MP wasn't entirely of his choosing: Novak drew him in, so he had the choice to either go for a net rush or try some sort of difficult half-volley. He chose the first but the execution of the approach shot wasn't good enough against someone like Novak.
Bolded: he was losing the sharpness of his whole FH side by then, not only his serve. Many people don't even comment on that, despite of it being obvious. The fatigue definitely caught up with him, so he was looking for shortening the points where he could. One can see how he was willing to risk more for a bigger reward too.
Not agree with this, its a weak return by Djoker. Federer screwed up himself on the 2nd MP by net rushing when he has a bad approach shot.
Djoker don't draw players in, its not his style.
More expert nonsense.
You're in denial. This was a sickening choke. I feel incredibly sorry for Federer that it happened but it's reality.
It was a short ball on his forehand. That is not ordinarily a difficult situation for a player of Federer's quality.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Yes, then on the next BP at 11-11, Djoker made a even weaker approach shot, its his turn to hit a passing shot but he hit a rally shot for Djokovic to volley. Too much amateur screw ups.
Don't worry, I have been through the whole charade to know how the things will develop, including every comment from the likes of you. The way you focus on what Federer didn't do at the expense of everything he did tells the whole story. The faulty representation of what really happened topped by expert psychological analysis is entertaining, but at this point the only thing you are doing is to convince yourself on something you already decided. Not a lonely approach by any means.
The truth is that Federer took his chances and Djokovic responded in the best possible way which is why Federer lost. All well within the realms of normal play and tactics. Both MPs which are so hotly debated weren't even that memorable from a tactical point of view. I was especially happy to read that the choice of I/O forehands is a somewhat better tactic than I/I based on preferences, regardless of any analysis of the playing situations themselves, and also that Federer chose to not "rip" his pass at 11-11. Apparently Federer felt charitable that day.
It seems De Nile isn't just a river in Africa.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
Don't worry, I have been through the whole charade to know how the things will develop, including every comment from the likes of you. The way you focus on what Federer didn't do at the expense of everything he did tells the whole story. The faulty representation of what really happened topped by expert psychological analysis is entertaining, but at this point the only thing you are doing is to convince yourself on something you already decided. Not a lonely approach by any means.
The truth is that Federer took his chances and Djokovic responded in the best possible way which is why Federer lost. All well within the realms of normal play and tactics. Both MPs which are so hotly debated weren't even that memorable from a tactical point of view. I was especially happy to read that the choice of I/O forehands is a somewhat better tactic than I/I based on preferences, regardless of any analysis of the playing situations themselves, and also that Federer chose to not "rip" his pass at 11-11. Apparently Federer felt charitable that day.
Perhaps the highlight of your post is the start of the second paragraph: "The truth is that Federer took his chances.....". Lol. Ever considered a job at the North Korean ministry of Information?
Don't worry, you will calm down in the next few days and maybe you will be able to discuss the matter more soberly. For now you are out on a mission to see some reactions. It happens around here.
I don't think anyone's ever been able to discuss anything soberly with you on here because of your propensity for willful misrepresentation. Anyway, they're currently showing a replay of the match with Djokovic about to serve at 5-6 in the 1st. I'd like to be looking forward to Federer playing a competent tie breaker. Instead I think I'll see 5 unforced errors off his forehand.
S'in-net
Semi-Pro
What didn't help Federer in this exact moment was someone in the crowd shouting "Go on Roger", literally as the ball was about to leave Federer's hand for that service toss, at 40:15, which ultimately struck the top of the tape; (at 0:23 in the vid):-
That was the mini fluctuation that made the difference, after that Djokovic timed the ball well and hit with authority for the rest of that game
Crisp
Professional
Totally agree with the above statement, had caught him hanging wide dozens of times in 5th set alone. Game of millimeters
Nothing went wrong at 40:15, you can lose a game like that even at MP, it happens. What really went wrong was that he choked on all 3 tie breakers really badly. He should have never lost the first one. The last tie break was probably the result of the other 2 he lost, it affected him badly.
stingstang
Professional
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.
It was right at the worst possible moment, just after he could've caught the ball. Someone told me Pat Rafter said something along the lines of - he'd be a rich(er) man if he had a dollar for every time someone's called out "c'mon Pat" after he's tossed the ball up for his serve. At the time he probably thought he could live with it, no point getting upset when you have one hand on the trophy......
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
Wow when Federer hits a return right at his opponent it is skill but when someone does the same thing to him then it is luck.
Raiden
Hall of Fame
At 40-15 it should have been an underarm serve.
Djoker was sufficiently behind to justify it. But it required greater level of creativity and concentration on the big points.
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
If you were there Djokovic would have won in 3 sets.
jklos
Professional
The 2nd match point he missed his spot. Not much more to it. He needed to be about a foot or two more to the line and about two feet more depth. If that was the case Novak would of maybe missed or at least give Roger a put away at the net. Another option was an angled inside out. Novak maybe would of got it but it would have been a hard pass on the backhand. It's a game of inches. Federer's match point in Aus Open vs Nadal he shanked the forehand crosscourt but hit it on the line. If Roger is hits anything close to that shot on MP #2 he is walking away with the trophy. He just hit it clean and right at him. What can you do. Would have been nice to find a few better serves there as well. Oh well that's tennis. Now all the script writers and tennis fans are talking about the mental strength of Djokovic and the mental lapses of Federer... I don't know. I think it's just the way the ball goes sometimes. No one can put the ball in the exact spot they want in these situations, you just try to come close. Sometimes it hits that spot or even better and sometimes it misses or even worse. In this moment it just didn't happen. The goal is to try to put yourself in these positions. That goal was achieved from both players. Only one hit the right spot though.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
It certainly was a heartbreaking loss. We must digest it as it was, and go on with our lives.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I didn’t watch match, as I was traveling yesterday. But I just watched someone’s GIF of the 40-30 match point.
That was an epic choke.
That was an epic choke.
jklos
Professional
True. He knows he can still beat the best of the best.
maximus
Semi-Pro
Unfortunately, it seemed that the great RF "rushed" his way into both points. Serves were weak. Returns to Novak's were weaker. I hope to forget this. I had a hard time sleeping. Imagine RF wasting 2 MPs on his serve? Unbelievable.
Last edited:
First he didn't hit very good serves. Then the approach shot at 40-30 was mediocre.
But now that a day has passed, he only missed 2 match points against the best returner of all time possibly. It can happen. I think the freebies he gave Djokovic in all 3 tiebreaks is what lost him the match more than those match points missed.
Tiebreaks is the one moment in a match where you don't want to make gifts. Ever. Federer basically gifted Djokovic at least 2 points in each tiebreak. That is the difference between a 4-2 and a 2-4. It is huge.
But now that a day has passed, he only missed 2 match points against the best returner of all time possibly. It can happen. I think the freebies he gave Djokovic in all 3 tiebreaks is what lost him the match more than those match points missed.
Tiebreaks is the one moment in a match where you don't want to make gifts. Ever. Federer basically gifted Djokovic at least 2 points in each tiebreak. That is the difference between a 4-2 and a 2-4. It is huge.
Sephiroth
Hall of Fame
Mirka knew even at 40-15 it wasn't over yet, she had her head down through that game while the crowd were getting over excited.
I didn't realise the noob shouting out during 40-15 with Fed hitting the tape after but looks like it came to bite them very hard. Such slim margins. If that went in it'd be over since Novak was going the wrong way anyway.
I didn't realise the noob shouting out during 40-15 with Fed hitting the tape after but looks like it came to bite them very hard. Such slim margins. If that went in it'd be over since Novak was going the wrong way anyway.
Mark-Touch
Legend
Fed is the ultimate player in skillful shots.
Chances are he could have pulled off that shot.
But with a 65% 1st serve %, and having just made it to 40-15 on two unplayable 1st serves,
why not simply go with a tried and tested serve?
He had four shots, each with a 65% chance of being either unplayable or producing a weak return.
Heck those are better odds than trying to get a head on four head/tail coin tosses.
Mark-Touch
Legend
Yes I agree about the effect of Djoker milking the crowd after his serve return had on Fed.
It wasn't enough to counter Fed's muscle memory of good serving.
Fed produced an excellent body serve on the next point.
But he was far too pumped with adrenaline at that stage, so when Djoker's weak mid-court ball came to him
he hit with way too much power, when a simple controlled shot would have been all that was required to
either win the point outright, or set up his next shot as a winner.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
8 years after, at his second MP, he shot with not enough power and placement, which facilitated Nole’s passing shot.
Mark-Touch
Legend
You make an EXCELLENT point!
Because going into the match, those were my exact thoughts.
To me, Fed had already sealed the deal.
Any time he can take out Nadal in a slam, it is mission accomplished as far as he is concerned.
Anything after that is pure gravy.
And to go up against Djoker, who has had his number in slams over the past few years and come within
a whisker of actually defeating him is totally mind blowing!
Mark-Touch
Legend
Valid points.
But he does this AFTER he goes for four BIG serves (if necessary).
His second serve was a relatively weak one, which pushed Fed back and produced his flying ball that sailed off to the side.
If AFTER going for four BIG serves, Djoker makes a miraculous service return and Fed finds himself in a regular rally with Djoker, then sure,
just continue rallying and see what happens.
Mark-Touch
Legend
And these weren't mere "Match points".
They were match points for a final.
And that final happened to be the most prestigious of all tennis finals played today.
