Spencer Gore
Legend
Until Federer broke at 7-7 in the fifth I never thought he looked like winning that match. Djokovic -although not at his best -looked as if he had another gear. And so it proved.
Who was ”better” today?
- Thread starter GabeT
- Start date
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
There's been a few salty posts, yes. Most of them have taken it pretty well though. I have to give them that.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer was the better player up until he had 40-15 8-7 in the fifth, after that Djokovic had the momentum and wouldn't be denied - despite another close call deep in the set. In the end Federer had to execute his game perfectly to beat B game Djokovic and it wasn't sustainable - especially in the TB's where he didn't get the free points with the serve and Djokovic's movement and groundstrokes were the difference maker. Overall Djokovic won the big points which is what counts.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Ahh, the bureaucratic fanbase just like the playing style of their idol.
You just answered the question, right? No nuance, or effort to actually address the claim on a case to case relevant basis. No mentioning of back issues, level of competition or similar.
Yes so he had back issues for the entire year? He wasn't playing as well point blank. It's not molecular biology.
Yeah, I felt the same way. Even when things were even, I always felt Djokovic is this 1% ahead and will never slip up. I don't think Djokovic will raise the game, I think Djokovic always keeps his level and Federer's level will eventually drop, which is what happened, like it always does. Yeah, FEd's peak level is amazing, but it's almost impossible to sustain it for hours.
Djokovic was better when it counted. Came up with 1st serves and big winners when it mattered on the BPs saved 5th set, tie breakers, MP down.
Fed played very well but faded in the 5th set due to fatigue. If he was as sharp as 1st set, his 1st serve speed would’ve been higher, he wouldn’t go for the suicide net approach on MP instead he would trust his baseline game, as he did first 4 sets.
Fed played very well but faded in the 5th set due to fatigue. If he was as sharp as 1st set, his 1st serve speed would’ve been higher, he wouldn’t go for the suicide net approach on MP instead he would trust his baseline game, as he did first 4 sets.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yes, he pretty much did. It has been well documented, including by his own admissions when talking about his attempts to change his racquet around the Canadian Masters. He wasn't playing well needs a context, which you didn't provide, which, of course was intentional. It is so funny to me. You and some of the other Djokovic fans that pretend to want to have a tennis conversation, but instead of being open about it are stalling with bureaucracy every point being made. Much like your idol, you are made for each other.
OK dude. I don't like anything you have to say either so we have an understanding in that regard as least. You can go back to what you were doing.
Virginia
Hall of Fame
Federer had two championship points. At that point in time, you could say he was the better player. Unaccountably he couldn't convert them and I'm sure he was gutted. He lost the match and that's that. Nobody's perfect and Djokovic slipped up on occasion as well. That's sport and to those people who are disgusted and say he choked, I would say they don't understand tennis.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
xan
Hall of Fame
I can understand the comments.
In reality it was a bit of a coin flip as both players could have won.
That one point can make all the difference, and change your judgement from
Novak is a mental giant to Novak player a bad match, hence he lost.
I felt fed was the better player or let's say played at a higher level for the first part of the match. I'm sure even novak would have agreed to that, heck he didn't even have a break point chance late into the match.
At the end I felt novak played better, and willed himself into winning.
He's done it before, he did it again.
In reality it was a bit of a coin flip as both players could have won.
That one point can make all the difference, and change your judgement from
Novak is a mental giant to Novak player a bad match, hence he lost.
I felt fed was the better player or let's say played at a higher level for the first part of the match. I'm sure even novak would have agreed to that, heck he didn't even have a break point chance late into the match.
At the end I felt novak played better, and willed himself into winning.
He's done it before, he did it again.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
It's an inane question. Federer played 'better' not just because of the blowout set, more because against the best returner in the world he didn't give up a break point until the fifth set, he served more aces per set than he did in any of his other rounds against said returner, and he was just totally in control of the play, he had Novak on a string a lot of time, running him around all over the place.
Of course when it comes down to it none of that stuff really matters, does it? Today proved that how pretty a game you play 90% of the time means little to nothing if you don't do that stuff when it matters.
I would be very interested to see Federer's unforced errors stat divided between the three tiebreakers, and the regular 5 sets of the match, because that was literally all that there was dividing them today.
Novak hardly stepped up and played some god tier tennis in the three breakers, he was gifted them by the amount of Federrors at moments that mattered most. Yeah, he played some really good points under pressure, but they are hardly what defined this match. There's no USO11 moment here, the most amazing thing he did was land every single one of his overheads.
This was one of those matches about which you can say it was all basically on one guys racket, and that was the case all the way to the finish line.
Of course when it comes down to it none of that stuff really matters, does it? Today proved that how pretty a game you play 90% of the time means little to nothing if you don't do that stuff when it matters.
I would be very interested to see Federer's unforced errors stat divided between the three tiebreakers, and the regular 5 sets of the match, because that was literally all that there was dividing them today.
Novak hardly stepped up and played some god tier tennis in the three breakers, he was gifted them by the amount of Federrors at moments that mattered most. Yeah, he played some really good points under pressure, but they are hardly what defined this match. There's no USO11 moment here, the most amazing thing he did was land every single one of his overheads.
This was one of those matches about which you can say it was all basically on one guys racket, and that was the case all the way to the finish line.
The Shape-shifter
Rookie
No, this match is the tennis version of Bayern-Chelsea 2012 CL final
acintya
Legend
I ocassionaly flame Fedfans but now i just cant say Djokovic was better. His game is totally un-appealing to me. Should have lost if you ask me. I only watched Fed the whole match - because Nole was a wall for the most of the time. So when someone practices on the wall,who do you watch? The wall or the person that is practicing?
Fed will never forgot this,and we will maybe in 10 years or the next time he wins a GS...If he will? i think he will win at least one more with more TBs going his way.
Fed will never forgot this,and we will maybe in 10 years or the next time he wins a GS...If he will? i think he will win at least one more with more TBs going his way.
Finally an accurate account of what really happened. Novak won, accept the reality Fedal Fans. Also WINNING is what counts, not who has the more winners, aces and better overheads-LOL!
I don't support either of them in general but this one I was slightly leaning towards a Novak win. But watching that match, it was clear Fed played better, was more aggressive, created more chances, applied tactics and the stats back that up. It is a shame to see he lost as I feel the better player should win. His shots were a joy to watch esp. his one handed backhand.
This will sting Fed for a long time having those two match points being 40-15 up. I'm not being biased here but Novak did not do anything exceptional. He just won the big points or Fed lost it. If he had kept up the aggression when it mattered, he would've won.
Djokovic was same old same old - deep balls. Sometimes I see Djokovic as David Ferrer - just a 1000 times better. But the fact that he's done this twice to Fed shows that he's strong mentally.
Sephiroth
Hall of Fame
Fed was the better player really but for some reason and shockingly, he played some DUMB tennis in the tie breaks, he was never patient because he was feeling rattled. Djokovic on the other hand had balls of steel in the tie breaks it was watching two different players. Across the sets, Federer was the better player while Djokovic was just keeping up. In the tie breaks Federer made mistakes and played with no intensity while Djokovic turned it on and didn't make any mistakes compared to mistakes he made in actual set play.
Fed's lack of patience was shown at 40-30 at 2nd match point too, shouldn't have tried to rely on a Djokovic error there but bizarrely he was patient everywhere else apart from the clutch moments, willing to rally in nothing games.
Fed's lack of patience was shown at 40-30 at 2nd match point too, shouldn't have tried to rely on a Djokovic error there but bizarrely he was patient everywhere else apart from the clutch moments, willing to rally in nothing games.
Younger players are not challenging Nadal or Roger either. The big 3 are still fighting each other for the slams.
Sorry about that-LOL! I would rather be boring and WIN than exciting and LOSE like Kyrigos, Montfils and even like Federer was yesterday.
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
Well tsitsipas did beat roger at Ao and he is like one foot from retirement imo
Tennusdude
Semi-Pro
Can you name another sport are you don't get credit for everything you do including the games you have won, imagine if in a basketball game you got one point for every quarter that you won, but all of the points you scored in that quarter were wiped out as a new quarter started. And if it ended up in a tie after four quarters you play a fifth quarter to determine the winner. In essence if you scored 20 more points then your opponent in any quarter all those points are wiped away at the start of the next quarter maybe they should change the rules of tennis so you get credit for what you actualy do.
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Djokovic lifted his game in the big points, the tie breaks that is and Federer **** the bed. It’s that simple. The winner is always the better player.
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
What rubbish. If he played better, why did he lose ??
Rabe87
Professional
I actually think this was the best match Fed ever played, though the Fed apologists will never admit it. He still lost, which leads me to believe he's not the GOAT. Thankyou for being honest enough to admit it.
Unlucky.
Tennusdude
Semi-Pro
I wonder what the result of the match would have been without Hawkeye? I also wonder what the results of many matches prior to Hawkeye would have been if it was available then. Although Hawkeye does have an error a 5% related to the fluff of the ball. There were also many shots that looked out to the naked eye during crucial point rallies which neither player elected to stop play to challenge. Unfortunately mistakes in line calls will always be a part of the game and play a role in determining the winner or a loser.
I admit that Federer is not the GOAT. In my opinion, Djokovic is the GOAT.
Rabe87
Professional
So we need to abolish Hawkeye, tiebreaks and change the scoring system to a shoot-out first to 160 points. I'm hurriedly jotting all this down. "Ways tennis must change for Fed to beat Djokovic - an apologists guide to being as salty as possible on TTW".
Tennusdude
Semi-Pro
Why do people like you always have to attack someone? How is rooting for Nadal by the way. I guess it makes you feel good.
Tennusdude
Semi-Pro
Thanks for putting words in my mouth that I never invite any of what you just said
Similar threads
