Why was prime Wawrinka (Stanimal) able to dominate Djokovic?

“He’s a player who has managed to maintain a very high level and improve every year. The numbers show he’s the best, which means his tennis has also been the best.
“And he’s been the most injury-free, which allowed him to maintain his physical, mental, and tennis levels longer than anyone. That’s why he’s the best, and he’s earned it.”

“The numbers say yes, for me yes (he is the best in history),”

“I believe that numbers are numbers and statistics are statistics, and in that sense, I think he has better numbers than mine and that is indisputable,”
“I do not have an ego big enough to try to disguise a reality that is not. This is the truth. The rest are tastes, inspiration, sensations that one or the other may transmit to you, that you may like one or the other more.
“I think that with respect to titles, Djokovic is the best in history and there is nothing to discuss in that.”

"I played against a player who did everything perfect. I know nobody playing tennis like this ever. Since I know this sport, I never saw somebody playing at this level.
"When I say perfect, it's not one thing in particular. It's everything. If not, it's not perfect."
 
The only domination that was happening was from Djokos side. Wawrinka managed to win a whooping 6 times out of 27 meetings. The amount of brainwashing in this narrative over the years is quite incredible that it has made people actually think Wawrinka beat Djokovic more times than not. In reality Djokovic never had a real problem vs him, he got troubled in some of his years were he was having a bad spell in important matches and the 2016 USO and 2019 is literally purposely blown out of proportion to support this narrative.
Wawrinka beat Nadal 3 times out of 22 meetings, and outside of 2014-2015 Wawrinka didn't win a set against Nadal in 17 meetings. Even in 2015, Nadal had two straight forward indoor wins over Wawrinka (6-2, 6-1 in Shanghai, 6-3, 6-2 in YEC in London).

Wawrinka beat Federer 3 times out of 26 meetings, so a worse head-to-head record than against Nadal, although Wawrinka won sets off Federer more times than against Nadal (11 matches against Federer, compared to 3 matches against Nadal). Yes, Wawrinka only took a set off Nadal in the 3 matches where he actually beat Nadal (2014 Australian Open, 2015 Rome, 2015 Paris Indoor). Nadal's 19 wins over Wawrinka were all in straight sets.
 
Last edited:
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I think it was the most important rivalry in tennis history, it grew the sport and heightened interest - you can see with the pundits talk about matches like Wimbledon 2008.

Now most people agree Djokovic is the greatest, very few would argue. But it's quite interesting to look at the matchup with Djokovic and the souped up version of Wawrinka (Stanimal). If the stats below are correct, then in their 9 grand slam matches, Djokovic leads the head to head 5-4. But if we look at the crucial years where the Stanimal version of Wawrinka emerged, lets say from 2013 to 2019, then Wawrinka leads the head to head 4-3 in grand slams.

Dominate might be too strong of a word, but we have to remember Djokovic is considered by most (including me) as the greatest of all time. The fact that Wawrinka was able to beat him so many times in grand slams, is very crucial to this fascinating discussion. I want to discuss what about Wawrinka's game made him so successful against Djokovic? And why couldn't other players replicate it?

Consider their three matches in the Australian Open. Djokovic is the greatest and the Australian is his best surface. It's not quite Nadal on clay, but it's probably next or very close on the list. Each one of their matches went to 5 sets, with Wawrinka winning their 2014 match.

Federer and Nadal spoke about the difficulty in playing against Djokovic. It's the stuff we already know, superb fitness/athleticism and balance, consistent baseline play, best return of serve. Most particularly, how he stands closer to the baseline, hits earlier and changes direction better than anyone in history. Nadal spoke about his matches against Djokovic and said there isn't really a plan to win against him, if you hit to the sides, he puts you in even more trouble.

Which then leads me to ask, what about Wawrinka's game troubled prime Djokovic so much? Wawrinka doesn't appear to be super fast around the court, Djokovic should technically be able to move him around like every other opponent he faced? Wawrinka often returned the serve with a slow slice/chip - which you would think wouldn't be the best idea.

I'm not sure exactly what allowed Wawrinka to have such great success against Djokovic in the baseline rallies. We all know the classic forehand or backhand winners that Wawrinka played but the more interesting analysis is how he was able to get to the positions to hit winners that players like Federer and Nadal just couldn't do often enough against Djokovic. Looking at their matches (prime), it looks like Djokovic is never fully comfortable against Wawrinka's baseline strokes. Djokovic isn't able to change direction like he normally can and it's almost like he's being pushed back. Even in their basic baseline rallies, forehand to forehand, or backhand to backhand, Djokovic isn't able to easily switch it on and dominate like he done with other players.

Why couldn't other players replicate what Wawrinka was doing? Yes Wawrinka's shots look heavy to push Djokovic back, but then he had no problems dealing with Nadal's very potent, heavy and high topspin forehand.

It was a fascinating matchup during the time, and is pretty significant. The three slams Wawrinka won, he had to beat Djokovic each time. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.


Djokovic vs. Wawrinka — Grand Slam Matches​


YearTournamentRoundWinnerScore
2012US OpenRound of 16Djokovic6–4, 6–1, 3–1 (Wawrinka retired)
2013Australian OpenRound of 16Djokovic1–6, 7–5, 6–4, 6–7(5), 12–10
2013US OpenSemifinalDjokovic2–6, 7–6(4), 3–6, 6–3, 6–4
2014Australian OpenQuarterfinalWawrinka2–6, 6–4, 6–2, 3–6, 9–7
2015Australian OpenSemifinalDjokovic7–6(1), 3–6, 6–4, 4–6, 6–0
2015French OpenFinalWawrinka4–6, 6–4, 6–3, 6–4
2016US OpenFinalWawrinka6–7(1), 6–4, 7–5, 6–3
2019US OpenRound of 16Wawrinka6–4, 7–5, 2–1 (Djokovic retired)
2023WimbledonRound of 32Djokovic6–3, 6–1, 7–6(5)



Novak lost those matches because he was wearing Uniqlo pajamas.

Those were the worst outfits I've ever see in my life. The material looked like it was made in a lab. Like you could insulate your attic with it. Like you could build PVC pipe out of it if you could melt it down and mold it. Like you could survive Alaskan winters in a tent made of it.

Slight improvements w Federer's Uniqlo kits, but still not my favorite stuff.

Novak has looked so much better in LaCoste. Better than Fed did in Uniqlo.
 
Last edited:
Peak Wawrinka, like many other players at their peak, was better than any version of Djokovic.
That's why Djokovic will never be GOAT, his best level was never the best in the world, let alone of all-time.
I agree. And also not my goat.

I think Peak Fed and Rafa and maybe peak Stan out peak Novak.

But Novak's 4th gear is so incredibly good and so consistent, he doesn't have to have a 5th gear.
 
I agree. And also not my goat.

I think Peak Fed and Rafa and maybe peak Stan out peak Novak.

But Novak's 4th gear is so incredibly good and so consistent, he doesn't have to have a 5th gear.
still peak nole had 7-0 run in 7 big finals on all surfaces vs peak rafa. hold all peak stats. and rafa him self said that noles tennis was best and that nole was player who played on the highest level he saw.
 
Djokovic has always been more dependent on the form of rivals than Fedal were. That’s why he won just one slam from 2007-2010. We saw this again with his losses to Murray in 12-13 and then Warwick’s and we see it now with Sinner. It’s why he may be the stats goat but not the peak goat.
 
Federer only ran into Stanimal once, i.e. 2015 French Open.

Nadal at the 2014 Australian Open, I suppose, although the back injury certainly didn't help matters.

Djokovic ran into Stanimal more than half a dozen times, including some matches that Djokovic won.
Maybe Stanimal is only Stanimal on clay when it comes to Fed?
 
Obligatory post for those who watched to remember that Djokovic should have lost the 2013 AO match if not for a terrible line call off a massive Stan return that would have given him a break in the 5th.

The AO king would have had a 1-2 losing AO record to Stan during his peak, and a 2-5 losing slam record from 2013 to 2019.

Never forget.


Obligatory post for those that love to bring up Djokovic could have lost in 2013 but ignore that Wawrinka could have lost in 2014. They had two very close matches, they split wins. No "what ifs". Yeah, Wawrinka could have been 2-1 and Djokovic could have been 3-0.
 
Federer only ran into Stanimal once, i.e. 2015 French Open.

Nadal at the 2014 Australian Open, I suppose, although the back injury certainly didn't help matters.

Djokovic ran into Stanimal more than half a dozen times, including some matches that Djokovic won.


AO 2017 and USO 2015 too. Although he played terribly in the latter, it was still peak Wawrinka. AO 2017 was a classic, and they also met at Wimbledon 2014 where Stan did pretty well considering it was grass, I don't think there's a "Stanimal" version on that surface, but he played a great match.
 
Obligatory post for those who watched to remember that Djokovic should have lost the 2013 AO match if not for a terrible line call off a massive Stan return that would have given him a break in the 5th.

The AO king would have had a 1-2 losing AO record to Stan during his peak, and a 2-5 losing slam record from 2013 to 2019.

Never forget.

Was it match point?

If it wasn't then there is no should....you would think a Federer fan would know that.
 
I guess it's more convenient to exclude Masters and WTF, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say he "dominated" Djoker (prime Stan is 3-8 against Djoker, btw).

donald-duck-cherry-picking.gif
 
Djokovic has always been more dependent on the form of rivals than Fedal were. That’s why he won just one slam from 2007-2010. We saw this again with his losses to Murray in 12-13 and then Warwick’s and we see it now with Sinner. It’s why he may be the stats goat but not the peak goat.

More nonsense. So basically his level stays the same, it is everyone else's level that goes up and down and he is at their mercy.
 
Serve-return dynamics are horrendously overlooked here. Wawrinka got through Djokovic’s return about as well as any non-Bot I’d ever seen, and importantly, Novak was unable to take the block-backed returns and turn them into instant offense.

Whenever Djokovic did play a bit more aggressively (see USO 13 SF) he made boatloads of errors but also clearly stressed Wawrinka more than the backboard approach. And of course everything bleeds into another, but the courts of the mid 2010s were sloooooow which of course helped Wawa even more.

Not being able to punish middling returns is a huge issue in tennis and it’s why I think Novak’s staggering resume isn’t, like, 30+ Slams. The competition he’s faced suggests he should’ve gotten to 30. Wawrinka was not that good. Novak made him appear so.
 
Djokovic doesn’t have the variety and ability to rush the opponent like Federer. Djokovic basically played him like a pusher and Wawrinka blasted him away and didn’t give him errors. It was beautiful to watch. Djokovic sat back and hoped that Stan would just gift him the matches with errors.
That must be why Federer is up H2H against both of his biggest opponents?
 
Obligatory post for those that love to bring up Djokovic could have lost in 2013 but ignore that Wawrinka could have lost in 2014. They had two very close matches, they split wins. No "what ifs". Yeah, Wawrinka could have been 2-1 and Djokovic could have been 3-0.
No. Sorry. Djokovic's 2013 win is asterisked because a service break that Wawrinka earned was not given to him. Was Wawrinka's 2014 win the consequence of a point Djokovic earned being taken from him? The crucial break came because Djokovic made some volley errors.
 
rafa is not saying he never had tactics against djoker
not only using one particular (or a few ones) tactic is already a tactic
worked well for him on the non-clay surfaces, especially in the last decade.
His best tactic was indeed not to cross paths with ND on any surface other than clay
 
No. Sorry. Djokovic's 2013 win is asterisked because a service break that Wawrinka earned was not given to him. Was Wawrinka's 2014 win the consequence of a point Djokovic earned being taken from him? The crucial break came because Djokovic made some volley errors.

It's not "asterisked". There are tons of matches with umpiring mistakes, Wawrinka chose not to challenge and it wasn't even a match point.

1- Wawrinka could have still lost that point.
2- Wawrinka could have won that point but lost the following game and eventually the match.
3- Wawrinka could have won that match, but lost the one the following year.

To act like it was a sure thing Wawrinka wins that match if the call wasn't wrong or if he had challenged is nonsense.
 
It's not "asterisked". There are tons of matches with umpiring mistakes, Wawrinka chose not to challenge and it wasn't even a match point.

1- Wawrinka could have still lost that point.
2- Wawrinka could have won that point but lost the following game and eventually the match.
3- Wawrinka could have won that match, but lost the one the following year.

To act like it was a sure thing Wawrinka wins that match if the call wasn't wrong or if he had challenged is nonsense.
It's not a sure thing Wawrinka wins the match, but Djokovic's win is asterisked.

1- There are tons of matches with umpiring mistakes, but much fewer with mistakes that directly influence the result of the match. When they do, it's fair to say the result is asterisked.
2 - Djokovic's response landed a few inches from the service line. It was a complete sitter that pros could hit for a winner with very little risk.
3 - Winning that point would have Wawrinka serve for the match.
4 - What actually happened in the match is Wawrinka held serve 6 more times until 10 all.

Edit:
5 - I have no idea why the 2014 result is relevant. Stan earned that win. He wasn't gifted the win because of poor officiating. The same can't be said for the 2013 result.

To act like the mistake did not directly influence the result of the match is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
It's not a sure thing Wawrinka wins the match, but Djokovic's win is asterisked.

1- There are tons of matches with umpiring mistakes, but much fewer with mistakes that directly influence the result of the match. When they do, it's fair to say the result is asterisked.
2 - Djokovic's response landed a few inches from the service line. It was a complete sitter that pros could hit for a winner with very little risk.
3 - Winning that point would have Wawrinka serve for the match.
4 - What actually happened in the match is Wawrinka held serve 6 more times until 10 all.

Edit:
5 - I have no idea why the 2014 result is relevant. Stan earned that win. He wasn't gifted the win because of poor officiating. The same can't be said for the 2013 result.

To act like the mistake did not directly influence the result of the match is nonsense.

Went back and checked the point. Why on Earth didn't he challenge it?? It was well in, I can see it from here. Djokovic had the best view as well.

 
I would say Djokovic does like rhythm, both Federer and Nadal were able to utilise the slice to disrupt Djokovic's rhythm. He doesn't have the insane racket speed of Fedal so he's not able to punish that shot like they are, plus for a long time his slice was kinda mid/bad. But that's not why Stan used to give him fits, that was the heavy hitting, the angles and his patience in long rallies.
Djokovic had a huge weakness on his FH side from a DTL shot to that side (i.e from Stan and Federer's and Alcaraz and Sinner BH DTL or a Nadal FHDTL). Even on his BH side (he had the best BH ever at his peak) he was vulnerable to shots DTL to that wing. The thing is though only the every best can hit DTL rockets consistently in the biggest moments. Hitting Cross court to Djokovic was suicidal. Murray had a bad record against Djokovic but the times he scored big wins over Djokovic he was hitting his DTL BH and FH's at elite level. Murray's problem was on the FH side he just didnt have the technique to do that regularly enough.
 
That must be why Federer is up H2H against both of his biggest opponents?
The two that were younger than him and were able to keep playing against him when they were both still improving when he was at his prime, then when they were at their prime when he was declining, and then when they were declining but he of course was further declining?
 
The 2013 match in Australia was awesome but with respect to Djokovic, it wasn't until the 2020s when his own generation had mostly retired and he was facing mostly 90s players that he started winning slams with relative ease, before then he could be pushed to 5 sets by anyone.

The 2014 match was awesome and it was a massive upset, followed by another upset in the final. Full credit to Stan there.

The 2015 french open final Djokovic choked badly. Nobody ever wants to admit this but it's true. Stan was awesome but Novak folded mentally after losing the second set and looked like a beaten man for the rest of the match.

In the 2016 US Open final he had the injury that went on to ruin the rest of that season and the 2017 to miss 2018 seasons.

The 2019 US Open match he retired with an injury.

There's a lot of context to their rivalry in those years.
 
and loses come mostly at noles worst slams (RG and USO).

AO: 2-1
RG: 0-1
W: 1-0
USO: 2-2

but in form wawa was indeed a thought muchup for nole. it happened. fed had it hard vs rafa even on HC not only on clay! before 2015 he was only 6-9 vs rafa on HC!!! and his fans still talked about clay skewed h2h due 2-13 (at that time) on clay! rafa had 5-6 vs denko including 1-6 on HC!

Sorry goatkovic, but Stan was robbed in that 2013 AO match... bs line call is the only reason it isn't 2-1 Stan's way at Djok's best slam...
 
.... he never dominated Djokovic though. Djokovic dominated the H2H 21-6 and their slam meetings ended 5-4 to Djokovic.

He also got dominated in the H2H against the other two as well. Peak Stan turned up for about 8-10 weeks in a 20 year career.
 
still peak nole had 7-0 run in 7 big finals on all surfaces vs peak rafa. hold all peak stats. and rafa him self said that noles tennis was best and that nole was player who played on the highest level he saw.

In the Andy interview, Rafa said Novak's "ball control" was the best he'd ever seen. But fair point on the stats, he's the most accomplished and decorated player in history, without a doubt.
 
The only domination that was happening was from Djokos side. Wawrinka managed to win a whooping 6 times out of 27 meetings. The amount of brainwashing in this narrative over the years is quite incredible that it has made people actually think Wawrinka beat Djokovic more times than not. In reality Djokovic never had a real problem vs him, he got troubled in some of his years were he was having a bad spell in important matches and the 2016 USO and 2019 is literally purposely blown out of proportion to support this narrative.

This thread is about Stanimal, not Stan overall. And Stanimal played Djokovic really well on the big stage, including 2-0 in slam finals.

Of course he didn't dominate Djokovic over their careers, everyone knows that.
 
I believe there were like 5 matches where Stan has been literally redlining on serve, forehand and backhand when playing Novak. And yes, I believe it was the underrated Stan’s serve that was doing the damage…
 
Wawrinka beat Nadal 3 times out of 22 meetings, and outside of 2014-2015 Wawrinka didn't win a set against Nadal in 17 meetings. Even in 2015, Nadal had two straight forward indoor wins over Wawrinka (6-2, 6-1 in Shanghai, 6-3, 6-2 in YEC in London).

Wawrinka beat Federer 3 times out of 26 meetings, so a worse head-to-head record than against Nadal, although Wawrinka won sets off Federer more times than against Nadal (11 matches against Federer, compared to 3 matches against Nadal). Yes, Wawrinka only took a set off Nadal in the 3 matches where he actually beat Nadal (2014 Australian Open, 2015 Rome, 2015 Paris Indoor). Nadal's 19 wins over Wawrinka were all in straight sets.

Yea, thank you for pointing out how bad this guy actually was in these matches. What is that, 12-63 h2h combined? He had a few good wins and a few where Djokovic was not at his fullest capacity physically and form wise and a few tough 5 setters but the way people have built this narrative over Stan being this unsolveable puzzle is just terribly wrong.
 
Last edited:
because Stan was in his prime and wore down djokovic with heavy ballstriking while playing good enough defense.

fed was 4-1 vs djoko in 07-09 in slams (2-3 when past prime and in djokovic's 2 of 3 best years in 11-12 and a point away from 3-2).

At same age fed would've had the clear edge over djokovic as well as stanimal did (actually more)
he had more variety to disrupt djokovic, better defense and better serve
 
because Stan was in his prime and wore down djokovic with heavy ballstriking while playing good enough defense.

fed was 4-1 vs djoko in 07-09 in slams and same age fed would've had the clear edge over djokovic as well as stanimal did (actually more)
he had more variety to disrupt djokovic, better defense and better serve
"If Federer is born five years later alongside Nadal and Djokovic... there is a very real chance HE wins zero slams"
Spencer_gore.jpg
 
This thread is about Stanimal, not Stan overall. And Stanimal played Djokovic really well on the big stage, including 2-0 in slam finals.

Of course he didn't dominate Djokovic over their careers, everyone knows that.

I can't turn a blind eye for some of the circumstances in wich Stan racked up some of those wins vs Djokovic. You have the AO 14 as well vs Nadal. This is like Djokovic fans talking about how he beat Federer in AO 2020. When you put 2 and 2 together you can quickly see there is no backing for Stan to be called this unsolvable puzzle and then the hilariously inaccurate thread title where Stan supposedly ''dominated'' Djokovic. He was never a real problem, Djokovic beat him plenty in big matches and made things difficult for himself in some of the others where he paid the price.
 
In the Andy interview, Rafa said Novak's "ball control" was the best he'd ever seen. But fair point on the stats, he's the most accomplished and decorated player in history, without a doubt.
yes, but he was talking about nole as GOAT with highest level and best tennis many times:

“He’s a player who has managed to maintain a very high level and improve every year. The numbers show he’s the best, which means his tennis has also been the best.
“And he’s been the most injury-free, which allowed him to maintain his physical, mental, and tennis levels longer than anyone. That’s why he’s the best, and he’s earned it.”

“The numbers say yes, for me yes (he is the best in history),”

“I believe that numbers are numbers and statistics are statistics, and in that sense, I think he has better numbers than mine and that is indisputable,”
“I do not have an ego big enough to try to disguise a reality that is not. This is the truth. The rest are tastes, inspiration, sensations that one or the other may transmit to you, that you may like one or the other more.
“I think that with respect to titles, Djokovic is the best in history and there is nothing to discuss in that.”

"I played against a player who did everything perfect. I know nobody playing tennis like this ever. Since I know this sport, I never saw somebody playing at this level.
"When I say perfect, it's not one thing in particular. It's everything. If not, it's not perfect."
 
Went back and checked the point. Why on Earth didn't he challenge it?? It was well in, I can see it from here. Djokovic had the best view as well.

Was it match point?

If it wasn't then there is no should....you would think a Federer fan would know that.
No. Sorry. Djokovic's 2013 win is asterisked because a service break that Wawrinka earned was not given to him. Was Wawrinka's 2014 win the consequence of a point Djokovic earned being taken from him? The crucial break came because Djokovic made some volley errors.
Sorry goatkovic, but Stan was robbed in that 2013 AO match... bs line call is the only reason it isn't 2-1 Stan's way at Djok's best slam...

firstely, why did he not challenge? it is his own fault not to do it!

and secondly, even if he challenged it will not mean that he would won it. nole played the ball back and the point would be repeat. he would have new BP not break. a BP is not the break.

3rdly, even if he won the game he would still have to serve for the match.

i can not fined stats for every set but that match nole saved 61,1% of BP (56% if we take out that one) so we can take that it is 44% chance that wawa should broke him.
wawa won 77% of his service games and to serve for the match the press would only be bigger. if we take the same % as they had that day (40 and 77), chance to both made break and serve aout the match are 0.4x0,77= 34% .... so apr 1/3 that wawa serv out that and 2/3 that he does not! and you can not know how it would reflect on their future matches from that point. maybe this way helped wawa to have some vendetta feelings and do better in next matches. maybe he would build some mental barrier (like fed had) if he was about to serve for the match but lost from that point.

but he was not robbed, at that time he had right to challenge and the point was live when they played and he did not won it.

when nole played vs fed at W19 fed played in the net on MP but they repeated the point because it was could out at the time he shot the ball. they repite it and nole won it again.
 
Last edited:
Yeah peak Stan performed really well against Novak at slams, often taking the racquet out of Novak's hands during those matches. It was such a short time period due to him and jmd being affected by injuries, or else Novak's slam count would have been dented.
 
I can't turn a blind eye for some of the circumstances in wich Stan racked up some of those wins vs Djokovic. You have the AO 14 as well vs Nadal. This is like Djokovic fans talking about how he beat Federer in AO 2020. When you put 2 and 2 together you can quickly see there is no backing for Stan to be called this unsolvable puzzle and then the hilariously inaccurate thread title where Stan supposedly ''dominated'' Djokovic. He was never a real problem, Djokovic beat him plenty in big matches and made things difficult for himself in some of the others where he paid the price.

Stan was definitely not an "unsolvable puzzle" - but he beat Novak in both their slam finals at the height of Novak's career. II think that's gotta count as a "problem", especially if Stan is as weak as you portray him.

I personally think there was no player Novak feared more in slams 2013-2016 than Wawrinka. For reasons known.
 
The two that were younger than him and were able to keep playing against him when they were both still improving when he was at his prime, then when they were at their prime when he was declining, and then when they were declining but he of course was further declining?
LOL
Do you apply the same analogy when he was beating 36yo crippled Agassi, Phillapousis, and others or should those slams also “have an asterisk “ on your list?
 
That must be why Federer is up H2H against both of his biggest opponents?

fed was up 4-1 vs djoko in his prime in slams
and 2-3 in slams (nearly 3-2) when past his prime and djoko in 2 of his 3 best years (11-12)

just thank all your gods fed was 6 years older. if same age, he'd own djoko like stan did in 14-19 (4-1)

nadal of course is a clay skew case and again helped by age factor
 
LOL
Do you apply the same analogy when he was beating 36yo crippled Agassi, Phillapousis, and others or should those slams also “have an asterisk “ on your list?

LOL, thinking scud was one of fed's primary opponents. and agassi does get leeway for being old. But fed went 8-0 vs agassi in 03-05. fed was beating djoko consistently in Bo3 in older age in contrast.

noone talked about asterisk. just saying fed would've easily lead the h2h vs djoko if they were of the same age, considering fed is better prime to prime on grass, faster HC, clay and indoor HC. djoko only better on slow HC.
 
he and his uncle said it many times.

From the biography Rafa - My Story:

''He is a very complete player - more complete, Tony says, than I am - without any obvious weak points, and on hard surfaces he'd beaten me more times than I had beaten him. His greatest strengths are his excellent sense of positioning and his ability to hit the ball early, on the rise. He is as good on the backhand as on the forehand, and his vision of the ball is so sharp that he plays with time to spare, more often than not inside the court, narrowing the angles for his opponents, making the game a lot easier for himself.

With Federer the rule is always keep patiently plugging away, knowing you'll force him sooner or later to make mistakes. With Djokovic, there is no clear tactical plan. It is simply a question of playing at your very best, with maximum intensity and aggression, seeking to retain control of the point, because the moment you let him get the upper hand, he is unstoppable.''

Nadal on Djokovic: "It was never a clear and defined strategy that had to be implemented against him"

Toni Nadal: We did not know how to read Novak Djokovic's game

"With Roger everything was always easier because since 2006 we focused on starting almost all the points playing a high and strong ball to his backhand. Djokovic has always been much more complex, we did not know how to read his game. I remember at the US Open in 2010 Rafa came up to me in the middle of the game and asked me what to do. I instructed him to play hard and deep to the center, and only change directions when he had a very advantageous position,"

“We have a way to beat him” Rafa Nadal uncle reveals massive difference between playing Djokovic and Federer​


“For us it was always more difficult to play against Djokovic. Because it’s not about who of them is better.
“For us, when we play against Federer, we have a way to beat him. In my mind, before going on court, I know what we have to do. When we play against Djokovic, many times we didn’t know exactly what we had to do. This is more difficult, for me. I prefer to play against Federer”
This Roger Federer as some unbeatable God stuff is refuted a 1000 times already. He has weakness. His backhand. Let's call a spade a spade.

It's not weakness compared to avg top 50. But it's damn near average. But when your competition is Djokovic nadal and Murray, it's weak.
 
When you've said things like this about the RG 2021 SF, then it seems you're applying a different standard to this match.

Yes, an unproven Wawrinka at the time was the exact same as a God of RG and PC who already had won 13 RG titles, never lost a five set match on clay, and had 7-1 H2H against Djokovic on that court at that time.

Wawrinka was leading with a break in the second set also, and ending up blinking and losing multiple games to lose the set 7-5. There is no garantee he wins as there was nothing he had done up to that point that proved it.
 
firstely, why did he not challenge? it is his own fault not to do it!

and secondly, even if he challenged it will not mean that he would won it. nole played the ball back and the point would be repeat. he would have new BP not break. a BP is not the break.

3rdly, even if he won the game he would still have to serve for the match.

i can not fined stats for every set but that match nole saved 61,1% of BP (56% if we take out that one) so we can take that it is 44% chance that wawa should broke him.
wawa won 77% of his service games and to serve for the match the press would only be bigger. if we take the same % as they had that day (40 and 77), chance to both made break and serve aout the match are 0.4x0,77= 34% .... so apr 1/3 that wawa serv out that and 2/3 that he does not! and you can not know how it would reflect on their future matches from that point. maybe this way helped wawa to have some vendetta feelings and do better in next matches. maybe he would build some mental barrier (like fed had) if he was about to serve for the match but lost from that point.

but he was not robbed, at that time he had right to challenge and the point was live when they played and he did not won it.

when nole played vs fed at W19 fed played in the net on MP but they repeated the point because it was could out at the time he shot the ball. they repite it and nole won it again.

Yep. I agree.
 
Back
Top