Why was it harder for Djokovic to defeat Federer at Cincy than it was to defeat Nadal at clay masters

[InsideOut900]

I think some of the older guys like Tennis_Hands and tonylg would be frothing at the mouth here. This was sort of their entire MO - that the snail-slow HC was the only reason Djokovic could win anything over Federer. Actually no it was the age gap lol. The 6-1 H2H for Roger at Cincy/Shanghai is a compelling case though it has to be said.

I don't think Djokovic would have won less if they kept the court speeds to pre-2011 ones. At worst maybe 1-2 Slams less. I mean they have been speeding up the courts since 2017 and Djoko looking perfectly comfortable on them.

As for the other matter, Federer is a better player in fast conditions, it's pretty obvious by both number of titles, H2H and opponents they beat in their careers.

I wanted some Djokovic fans to call attention to some of those ATP finals wins but instead they took the safe route and said Clay was a better surface for him than fast HC

Those wins in 2012 and 2015 were technically on slow-medium to medium HC.

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[RaulRamirez]

I wanted some Djokovic fans to call attention to some of those ATP finals wins but instead they took the safe route and said Clay was a better surface for him than fast HC

I think the 'Djokovic only good on slow HC' stuff is way overblown tbh. But Federer is quite obviously better on fast HC.

I really don't get into what is oft-popular here -- crowning "goats" on every surface, condition and major tournament. Pretty clearly, The Big 3 have games, versatility and competitive instincts to be terrific everywhere. The only exception to this may be Rafa on indoor hard court, but if the tour were built on this as its primary surface, he would have found a way to win there.

So, is Novak better on clay than on fast HC? I don't know. Generally speaking, in these last 20 years, only Roger was better on fast HC, and only Rafa was better on clay. As others pointed out, at say, Cincy, Roger loves the court, and his aggressive style (when on) just doesn't give Novak enough time to play his way in (generalizing from three matches). On clay, Rafa is clearly better, but it's more about point construction and will to win, and at his best, Novak could find a way to compete and even win there.

As to Novak on fast HC, he does have many elements to his game that make him successful there....speed, quickness, reflexes, serve, ROS, able to counterpunch. It may not play to ALL his strengths, but he's still plenty equipped to play well there.

 

[Turning Pro]

I don't think Nadal cares AS much in the clay masters compared to RG and also isn't AS comfortable on the Clay masters as the Slam. 105-3 says it all.

 

[mike danny]

I wanted some Djokovic fans to call attention to some of those ATP finals wins but instead they took the safe route and said Clay was a better surface for him than fast HC

I think the 'Djokovic only good on slow HC' stuff is way overblown tbh. But Federer is quite obviously better on fast HC.

Both Fed and Novak are great on each other's preferred HC conditions.

Novak is a great fast HC player, but Fed is better.

Likewise, Fed is a great slow HC player, but Novak is better.

A shame Fed didn't really get to face Novak on a fast HC in BO5 after Djokovic reached his peak.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think Djokovic would have won less if they kept the court speeds to pre-2011 ones. At worst maybe 1-2 Slams less. I mean they have been speeding up the courts since 2017 and Djoko looking perfectly comfortable on them.

As for the other matter, Federer is a better player in fast conditions, it's pretty obvious by both number of titles, H2H and opponents they beat in their careers.



Those wins in 2012 and 2015 were technically on slow-medium to medium HC.

Yeah, I think 2015 WTF win for Fed was a rare time he beat Novak on a slow HC. Probably the first time since AO 2007.

 

[Hitman]

Both Fed and Novak are great on each other's preferred HC conditions.

Novak is a great fast HC player, but Fed is better.

Likewise, Fed is a great slow HC player, but Novak is better.

A shame Fed didn't really get to face Novak on a fast HC in BO5 after Djokovic reached his peak.

They are pretty much ranked one and two in those conditions. Hence their devastating numbers year round on HC.

 

[Enceladus]

And when a claycourter leads him both in titles and H2H on the most important HC Slam.

Them’s the facts, bud.

Nowadays, USO is no longer more important than AO, they are equal!

 

[mike danny]

Nowadays, USO is no longer more important than AO, they are equal!

Face the truth, bud.

 

[daggerman]

Because, ultimately, it's a pretty small sample of matches. Djokovic could've beaten Fed at Cincinnati once (before 2018). Likewise, he could've lost to Nadal at some of the clay masters at which he beat him. I wouldn't make sweeping conclusions about a small number of matches that often come down to a small number of points.

 

[FatHead250]

Federer is the king of irrelevant tourneys

 

[daggerman]

Nowadays, USO is no longer more important than AO, they are equal!

Besides, (anecdotally) most players prefer AO to USO these days, anyway. Why would the less-preferred HC slam be the most important one?

My guess: if the USO required a 2-week quarantine just to play, more players would've skipped it than was the case at this year's AO.

 

[Enceladus]

Face the truth, bud.

 

[mwym]

Not everything is purely in domain of objective measurable physical reality.

It is not the issue of how fast one's reflexes are. Best RoS ever proves it. The issue is different concept of what wins the match. And finaly the Slam race.

All other players only collect points. Djokovic needs more time and more shots in a point to play points in the way that winning them mindfvcks opponents. Long term.

If he did not crippled minds of Nadal and Federer FIRST he would never be where he is right now.

 

[mike danny]

Sarcasm is lost on you.

The whole bud thing is a meme on this forum.

 

[T007]

But why did Djokovic struggle more with Federer at Cincinnati specifically, than he did with prime Nadal on clay at all three masters events, basically straight setting him in all those finals, is the real question.

If you specially focus...Federer is the player that djokovic struggles break very often when he is serving at his peak.

If i remember Djoker the best returner couldn't break Federer for almost 7 sets in a row starting from 2018 paris to 2019 Wimb Final 4th set.

Another thing is that Federer plays hyper agressive coming more in to the net breaking djokers rythm from the baseline.

Federer is that type of player who hits more winners than any other player on tour and definitely those things become a deciding factor when they play each other

 

[Ray Mercer]

Federer gives you no time and suffocates you. That works like magic on a fast court. Especially on courts like Shanghai and Cincy

Its sad that no slams and more courts don’t play like this. If I was director of the tour I’d have the vast majority of tournaments play with this speed. It’s a shotmakers paradise.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Federer domination on fast court and Novak level usualy drops after Wimbledon until indoor season.

 

[Enceladus]

Sarcasm is lost on you.

The whole bud thing is a meme on this forum.

Precisely because your post was sarcastic, I used a gif.

I know 'bud meme' very well. I am not a newcomer, I have been active at TTW for 3 years.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Novak is Borg level on clay

 

[Cortana]

No human being can be second everywhere and be the GOAT or even a GOAT contender.

Have you ever worked somewhere with key performance indicators? Like 15% is acquiring new clients, 15% new business volume etc. Nobody will be #1 in every category, that's not possible. The #1 of all will be something like 1/3/2/8/4/2 in those categories.

Tennis is also like that. Some future player might end up with 7 AO, 7 RG, 7 W and 4 USO titles. He won't be #1 at any of those tournamemts, but with 25 slams probably the GOAT.

 

[Sunny014]

Have you ever worked somewhere with key performance indicators? Like 15% is acquiring new clients, 15% new business volume etc. Nobody will be #1 in every category, that's not possible. The #1 of all will be something like 1/3/2/8/4/2 in those categories.

Tennis is also like that. Some future player might end up with 7 AO, 7 RG, 7 W and 4 USO titles. He won't be #1 at any of those tournamemts, but with 25 slams probably the GOAT.

That won't happen!

Slams leader Sampras automatically had the most Wimbledons and US opens
Slams leader Federer automatically had and still has the most wimbledons and us opens
Nadal levelled 20 because of his 13 FOs
Djokovic reached 20 because of his 9 AOs and also because he was really good on Grass as well to take 5 slams which is level with Borg at the minimum.

It is impossible in the Men's circuit to have 7 AO, 7 RG, 7 W and 4 USO titles. type numbers. Nobody with be so evenly balanced without someone or the other better than him on fast surface or on the slow surface, you win't find someone withy 7RGs take 7Ws, Borg himself was a fluke, had Mcenroe been born with him then Borg would never have won more than 2-3 wimbledons.......

Always the slams leader will be a slams leader in 1 or 2 of the slams, it is an unsaid rule!

 

[Cortana]

What a load of BS I just read.

 

[Sunny014]

Prove me wrong if you can!

Slams leader with most slams in 1982 Borg had highest FOs and highest Ws too at that time.
Slams leader Sampras automatically had the most Wimbledons and US opens
Slams leader Federer automatically had and still has the most wimbledons and us opens
Nadal levelled 20 because of his 13 FOs
Djokovic reached 20 because of his 9 AOs and also because he was really good on Grass as well to take 5 slams which is level with Borg at the minimum.

In the ATP you will never have someone with 22 slams who has 5 AOs, 6 FOs, 6Ws and 5 USOs

This doesn't happen, Period !

 

[tkramer15]

The final masters title that Djokovic won was Cincinnati, finally getting past Federer there.

Despite Nadal being the more dominant single surface player, Djokovic had beat Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome by 2013, yet Federer kept holding Djokovic back. Federer stopped him in 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the finals, and it was finally in 2018 that Djokovic got over the final hurdle. Basically Federer at Cincinnati turned out to be the toughest and most challenging obstacle for Djokovic to deal with for his quest to complete the set.

Now, we often hear that Novak isn't good on fast courts, that simply isn't true, he has been over the course of his career the second best on fast hard courts, only behind Federer. Was the uber aggressive style, the ability to rob Novak of time, or simply that for Novak, Federer at Cincinnati was the toughest challenge he could face outside the slams....it goes without saying that Novak would have more than likely completed the set a while back if Fed was not standing in his way so often.

The quicker surface and Federer's comfort level in Cincinnati probably played a role, but Djokovic's relatively long wait for a title there had more to do with the timing of the event rather than anything else. Keep in mind, Djokovic also lost two Cincy finals to Murray, once retiring during the second set due to exhaustion.

It is very difficult just to go deep in both summer Masters events, let alone to win both. Federer did not play in the Canada Masters in 2012 or 2015. Meanwhile, Djokovic played well in Canada each of those years, winning in 2012 and losing the final in 2015. Consequently, Federer was the far fresher player in Cincinnati. Yes, Djokovic was still fresh enough/good enough to reach the Cincy final both years, but with the margins between those top guys so small, that extra freshness certainly had to bode well for Fed.

 

[Kralingen]

The quicker surface and Federer's comfort level in Cincinnati probably played a role, but Djokovic's relatively long wait for a title there had more to do with the timing of the event rather than anything else. Keep in mind, Djokovic also lost two Cincy finals to Murray, once retiring during the second set due to exhaustion.

It is very difficult just to go deep in both summer Masters events, let alone to win both. Federer did not play in the Canada Masters in 2012 or 2015. Meanwhile, Djokovic played well in Canada each of those years, winning in 2012 and losing the final in 2015. Consequently, Federer was the far fresher player in Cincinnati. Yes, Djokovic was still fresh enough/good enough to reach the Cincy final both years, but with the margins between those top guys so small, that extra freshness certainly had to bode well for Fed.

Yup.. especially in 2012 he was dead on his feet.

it’s undeniable that Federer is better fast court player but nuance seems to go out the window when it comes to Big 3 vs. Big 3 matches. For the winner it tells everything, for the loser, no excuses.

 

[King No1e]

The final masters title that Djokovic won was Cincinnati, finally getting past Federer there.

Despite Nadal being the more dominant single surface player, Djokovic had beat Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome by 2013, yet Federer kept holding Djokovic back. Federer stopped him in 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the finals, and it was finally in 2018 that Djokovic got over the final hurdle. Basically Federer at Cincinnati turned out to be the toughest and most challenging obstacle for Djokovic to deal with for his quest to complete the set.

Now, we often hear that Novak isn't good on fast courts, that simply isn't true, he has been over the course of his career the second best on fast hard courts, only behind Federer. Was the uber aggressive style, the ability to rob Novak of time, or simply that for Novak, Federer at Cincinnati was the toughest challenge he could face outside the slams....it goes without saying that Novak would have more than likely completed the set a while back if Fed was not standing in his way so often.

Contrary to much of the discourse here, Federer has been arguably Djokovic's most challenging opponent. Still regularly troubling and beating prime Djokovic well into 2014 and 2015. The only advantages Djokovic had were youth (until he too got old) and then the mental advantage that came with gaining the upper hand. Tactical matchup-wise Federer has the advantage.

 

[kevaninho]

I think Hitman is really trying to say, is that the general opinion is that beating Nadal on clay was the hardest thing to do in tennis. Yet he managed it by 2013, when Rafa was still in his prime.

He couldnt do the same to Roger till very post prime at Cinci.

Some of the responses on here have nothing to do with the actual question by OP.

Always results in nonsense fanboyism in half of these decent threads.

 

[wangs78]

The final masters title that Djokovic won was Cincinnati, finally getting past Federer there.

Despite Nadal being the more dominant single surface player, Djokovic had beat Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome by 2013, yet Federer kept holding Djokovic back. Federer stopped him in 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the finals, and it was finally in 2018 that Djokovic got over the final hurdle. Basically Federer at Cincinnati turned out to be the toughest and most challenging obstacle for Djokovic to deal with for his quest to complete the set.

Now, we often hear that Novak isn't good on fast courts, that simply isn't true, he has been over the course of his career the second best on fast hard courts, only behind Federer. Was the uber aggressive style, the ability to rob Novak of time, or simply that for Novak, Federer at Cincinnati was the toughest challenge he could face outside the slams....it goes without saying that Novak would have more than likely completed the set a while back if Fed was not standing in his way so often.

I think the reason is simply that Djokovic has a mental edge at the USO. Even in their first final at the USO, Djokovic showed he had the game to beat Federer but wound up choking away the first two sets despite being up a break in both. And then the subsequent 2010 and 2011 semifinal wins where Federer had match points but lost were just a manifestation of his (Djoker’s) mental strength in Arthur Ashe staidum. In contrast, in Cincy Djokovic just never broke through and never had that mental edge. Plus Fed probably didn’t care enough about Cincy to let any pressure get to him. And we all know when prime Fed was not feeling any mental pressure he was pretty much unbeatable. It was at the Slams when he felt pressure that he wound up playing poorly in many important moments.