Tennis Volume 8: Is a FedEx delivery coming?

[polishgenius]

15 minutes ago, Gronzag said:

Yeah, and against the entire stadium. Crowd exploded with joy even when he makes an error. Fuck them!

How dare crowds have favourites!

[Gronzag]

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

How dare crowds have favourites!

I don't mind crowd having favorites, but cheering when a player makes a mistake is really low.

If being nearly 38 is legit handicap for Federer, than crowd being openly against him is a legit handicap for Djokovic.

[David Selig]

This match reminded me I don't watch tennis much these days, it is bad for my heart. No other sport makes me anywhere near as nervous. There is an unlimited potential for your favourite to collapse at any moment, no lead is safe and a player can't just wait out the end of the match, he has to win it. I don't know how these guys manage to hold on the court mentally for the most part while also playing an extremely physical demanding game.

A shame Federer couldn't do it, he was so close.

Djokovic might well be the greatest tennis player of all time at the end of the day and I say that as someone who's never liked him and his style of play. He's the only player I can think of who just has no weaknesses in his game.

Though frankly, so much has changed in the sport in terms of rackets and courts that comparison between players of different eras are harder than even in most other sports. Wimbledon this year compared to let's say the mid 90s is so different in court speed that it almost looks like a different game. The slowing down of the courts combined with the racquet improvements have killed the serve and volley style or really any style which requires you to go to to the net more than once in a blue moon. Nowadays the top players habitually pull off passing shots that were physically impossible with the old rackets and strings. I wasn't a fan of the serve fest of the late 90s at the Wimbledon, but slowing the court wasn't the best solution. Back when I started following tennis in the mid 90s I loved how different every surface played, which made tennis different from almost any other sport. Now this is largely gone and I think it's a shame.

[Free Northman Reborn]

33 minutes ago, David Selig said:

This match reminded me I don't watch tennis much these days, it is bad for my heart. No other sport makes me anywhere near as nervous. There is an unlimited potential for your favourite to collapse at any moment, no lead is safe and a player can't just wait out the end of the match, he has to win it. I don't know how these guys manage to hold on the court mentally for the most part while also playing an extremely physical demanding game.

A shame Federer couldn't do it, he was so close.

Djokovic might well be the greatest tennis player of all time at the end of the day and I say that as someone who's never liked him and his style of play. He's the only player I can think of who just has no weaknesses in his game.

Though frankly, so much has changed in the sport in terms of rackets and courts that comparison between players of different eras are harder than even in most other sports. Wimbledon this year compared to let's say the mid 90s is so different in court speed that it almost looks like a different game. The slowing down of the courts combined with the racquet improvements have killed the serve and volley style or really any style which requires you to go to to the net more than once in a blue moon. Nowadays the top players habitually pull off passing shots that were physically impossible with the old rackets and strings. I wasn't a fan of the serve fest of the late 90s at the Wimbledon, but slowing the court wasn't the best solution. Back when I started following tennis in the mid 90s I loved how different every surface played, which made tennis different from almost any other sport. Now this is largely gone and I think it's a shame.

Great comment. The rollercoaster of elation and despair - repeated a hundred times - became too much. So much so that I walked out in despair when Djokovic was broken in the fifth, and missed his epic comeback from two match points down.

When I came back they were tied again.

It becomes unenjoyable, to be honest. These days I actually prefer easy wins providing cheap affirmation of my choice.

[David Selig]

I was watching this recorded because I couldn't get home in time for the start of the match, and towards the end I started fast forwarding a minute ahead on some of the biggest points to see who one the point and then rewound to actually watch the point knowing this because I was too nervous.

 

[Calibandar]

It was just too many missed opportunities for Federer.

I mean, I could talk all day about this in a way, cause I spent 6 hours of my Sunday watching this from start to finish, interrupting only to go get something to eat.

• Federer had some good break opportunities in set 1, two or three that he should have taken, but he didn't play strong at those points. 
• Federer was outplayed in all 3 tie breaks. He didn't just lose them, Djokovic won all of them handily. When things got really tight and it was every point matters, again and again Djokovic was stronger mentally, while Federer didn't play strong points on those moments.
• Federer choked when it mattered. This is crystal clear. He played a fantastic match and as he said, yes he can be satisfied with how he played. He made some incredible points. I really enjoyed watching his stunning play. But as much as the term "choking" is overused to typify a losing player, Federer choked. Again. I have seen this so many times before and watching the game yesterday really brought me back to Federer-Nadal clashes of yesteryear. Now, he's been able to free himself of the Nadal stranglehold the last years and it is no longer an issue, but against Djokovic it still very much persists. This incredibly uncertainty in his strokes when it gets tight. The matchpoint that wins Djoker the game was typical, a complete misshit by Federer. And leading up to that point, when Federer had his own chances to win earlier, at each of those moments he didn't play good points.
• This is obviously a massive missed opportunity. I really wish Fed had taken this one. It's not as if he couldn't, he could have won this.

Djokovic deserved credit for doing what he always does, counterpunch, get everything back, be super solid.

He is an incredibly hard player to beat. It's just that if anyone can, it's Federer, you watch that game yesterday and Federer just feels like the better player like the bbc commentators said as well. But you have to be consistent and you have to take those opportunities when you get them. Especially against Djokovic who hardly gives anyone any chances. You have to pounce, and Federer failed to do that again and again, mostly by playing poorly when the big points came.

And yet, we also saw some magnificent shots from Fed. And Djokovic was caught out by passing shots whenever he was forced to come to the net. But in the end, Djokovic'style of play is more low risk and super reliable. 

Fed is a phenomenal frontrunner, but when it gets really tight against Nadal and Djoker, he often has a tendency to stop playing his best tennis. And with his kind of style which needs that aggression, that is more damaging than with Nadal or Djokovic.

[Free Northman Reborn]

28 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

It was just too many missed opportunities for Federer.

I mean, I could talk all day about this in a way, cause I spent 6 hours of my Sunday watching this from start to finish, interrupting only to go get something to eat.

• Federer had some good break opportunities in set 1, two or three that he should have taken, but he didn't play strong at those points. 
• Federer was outplayed in all 3 tie breaks. He didn't just lose them, Djokovic won all of them handily. When things got really tight and it was every point matters, again and again Djokovic was stronger mentally, while Federer didn't play strong points on those moments.
• Federer choked when it mattered. This is crystal clear. He played a fantastic match and as he said, yes he can be satisfied with how he played. He made some incredible points. I really enjoyed watching his stunning play. But as much as the term "choking" is overused to typify a losing player, Federer choked. Again. I have seen this so many times before and watching the game yesterday really brought me back to Federer-Nadal clashes of yesteryear. Now, he's been able to free himself of the Nadal stranglehold the last years and it is no longer an issue, but against Djokovic it still very much persists. This incredibly uncertainty in his strokes when it gets tight. The matchpoint that wins Djoker the game was typical, a complete misshit by Federer. And leading up to that point, when Federer had his own chances to win earlier, at each of those moments he didn't play good points.
• This is obviously a massive missed opportunity. I really wish Fed had taken this one. It's not as if he couldn't, he could have won this.

Djokovic deserved credit for doing what he always does, counterpunch, get everything back, be super solid.

He is an incredibly hard player to beat. It's just that if anyone can, it's Federer, you watch that game yesterday and Federer just feels like the better player like the bbc commentators said as well. But you have to be consistent and you have to take those opportunities when you get them. Especially against Djokovic who hardly gives anyone any chances. You have to pounce, and Federer failed to do that again and again, mostly by playing poorly when the big points came.

And yet, we also saw some magnificent shots from Fed. And Djokovic was caught out by passing shots whenever he was forced to come to the net. But in the end, Djokovic'style of play is more low risk and super reliable. 

Fed is a phenomenal frontrunner, but when it gets really tight against Nadal and Djoker, he often has a tendency to stop playing his best tennis. And with his kind of style which needs that aggression, that is more damaging than with Nadal or Djokovic.

As much as that is all true, the counter point is that Djokovic wasn’t at his best yesterday and still won.

This was most evident in his low first serve percentage, his noted uncharacteristically poor return game, and his incredibly soft 2nd set.

If Federer had Djokovic’s low first serve percentage yesterday it might not even have been a contest. In short, Novak played below his best and still won through sheer bloody minded tenacity.

 

[Calibandar]

I agree and disagree.

Service wise it was clear that Federer was really on a roll and Becker kept commenting on the bbc as well that this remains Djokovic' biggest issue with Federer, he just can't read Fed's serve. Djoker can read anybody's serve well but even after playing Federer dozens of time he still really struggles to read him and sense his service rhythm. That of course is part of what makes Federer so good, other opponents can't deal with that either. Becker said Djoker even now keeps asking him where he thinks Federer will return, and did that a lot in the years Becker was his coach. So you gotta credit Federer for that.

Where I agree with you is that Djokovic didn't seem to be playing his best game either. We have certainly seen him play more impressive games, true. And sure, maybe it's because of that, that Federer could have won this. For me the overwhelming feeling is that in this game, Federer should and could have won, but he choked when it mattered. And that is something that has plagued him much in his career when playing these two. A sudden massive downfall in performance when the points really matter. Conservative play when that doesn't suit him, nervous mishits, mental pressure just getting to him. And as much as he worked on improving his footwork and backhand these last few years, with great success, I fear that this is something that will never go away.

[3CityApache]

Calibandar, I totally agree. Fed could and should have won it. He was leading 5-0 in break points capitalised and 8-0 in break points opportunities and was still losing the match late in the fourth set, that could be frustrating as hell.

And it's not the first time he loses against Novak after having match points on his own serve either.

The first match point yesterday was symptomatic: he wanted to end this as quickly as possible and went to the net completely unprepared, only to be passed over easily. And yet vast majority of his net approaches was successful, just not when it really mattered the most.

Credit for Novak for consistency and tenacity, but I feel this match was all about Roger. When he was lowering the number of unforced errors, he was on top. Otherwise, he was not. Simple as that.

But I'm amazed he still has it in him to compete for five hours against top players, that's just incredible.

[Calibandar]

Yeah, that approach shot on matchpoint just wasn't good. And the other matchpoint he just mishit the ball straight after it was returned to him.

His physical state is definitely still very good and certainly looks as good if not even better than it did 5 years ago to be honest. Still, I suspect he will continue to have huge trouble beating Djokovic in a best of five. Best of 3, that I think he can continue to do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 7/13/2019 at 5:55 AM, Leap said:

The Wimbledon Live Radio is pretty bad - it's like someone trying to parody an auctioneer during any point that goes longer than 3 shots. The best you can really get from it is a sense of how close-fought a game is, when there is a particular shot that I want to come back for, and obviously the score. I actually did end up turning it off,  but that was mostly due to my poor signal on the train (and the fact that it was the second set and Fed was losing). 

Yeah, that’s what I feared. Maybe it could work if they only spoke between games, but actually trying to call a game would be a mess.

So quick recap of the weekend. As a huge Serena fan, I’m starting to worry that 25, let alone 24, might not happen. She’s old and can’t move and defend anymore, so if her serve is off she’s toast. Hats off to Halep though, that was the best match of her life and her reaction to winning was so heartwarming. On the men’s side, Fed blew it. You can’t leave multiple champion set points on the table, especially against that cyborg who gives you nothing. Sucks I had to leave for a funeral when it was 9-8 in the fifth set.

[Calibandar]

Thought this was a good article.

https://www.theringer.com/2019/7/14/20693870/novak-djokovic-roger-federer-wimbledon-final-2019

Quote

Novak Djokovic has a way of winning even when he’s losing. He has a way of patiently absorbing his opponent’s most devastating play, doing just enough to stay alive, and choosing precisely the right moment to strike back. He’ll lose a spectacular rally and then, while the commentators are still gushing about the other player, unspectacularly win the next point. You’ll think he’s getting run off the court, and then he’ll absolutely maul a couple of forehand winners, and suddenly you realize that he’s about to win the set. Tennis is a game of moments hidden inside a game of runs. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a player who knows how to exploit that duality better than Djokovic

Quote

Djokovic—even if you root against him—has become the most fascinating character in tennis. His win today was so implausible as to be actually absurd, but it was also perfectly characteristic of him; it illustrated the extent he’s gone to turn his weaknesses into strengths. Just look at the stats. Federer (who is, again, the near-universal choice for greatest player of all time) won 36 games in a major final … and lost. Federer won at least six games in all five sets … and lost. Federer didn’t face a single break point in the first three sets … and lost. (He also lost two of those sets.) Federer won more games than Djokovic, 36-32. He won more points than Djokovic, 218-204. He served better than Djokovic by every measure: more aces (25-10), fewer double faults (6-9), higher first-serve percentage (63-62), higher percentage of points won on both his first serve (79-74) and second serve (51-47). He won more net points (51-24) and won them at a higher rate (78 percent-63 percent). He won more break points (7-3) and converted them at a higher rate (54 percent-38 percent). Djokovic is the best returner in the history of tennis, but in the final, Federer won more receiving points (79-64) and at a higher rate (36 percent-32 percent). He committed more unforced errors than Djokovic—his forehand was wobbly early in the match, and his recently rock-solid backhand became a little erratic during hour five—but more than made up his 10-point deficit there by hitting 40 more winners than Djokovic, 94-54.

Quote

In just about every category imaginable, Federer was the better player, and he lost. If you watched the match without looking at the score, and you didn’t know Djokovic’s history in matches like this, you’d have thought Federer was in command. (If you did know Djokovic’s history, chances are you never fully believed Federer could win, even when he was up two match points.) Federer was more active, more aggressive, and more apt to hit memorable shots; he spent the afternoon flying toward the net and touching tiny intimate drop shots into un-gettable positions over the net and pulverizing aces. And he lost

.Federer dominated the game of runs but couldn’t keep Djokovic from seizing control of the game of moments. After getting played off the court in the second set, Djokovic erected a sort of bleak force field around himself; he took the air out of the match, took the crowd out of it, and ground his way through a third set that suddenly seemed to have no rhythm. Federer had all the momentum, so Djokovic turned forward motion into a slog. Unable to hurt Federer’s serve, he played to survive to the tiebreaks. And once he got there, he was able to accelerate his game just enough to be the first to seven points. It was tight, brutal, unpoetic tennis with no margin for error, and he pulled it off. And as a result, Djokovic became the first man to win Wimbledon after facing match points since Bob Falkenburg in 1948

 

[Gronzag]

Looking at the two finals, it's a disgrace that women get the same prize as men.

[Jeor]

23 hours ago, Gronzag said:

Looking at the two finals, it's a disgrace that women get the same prize as men.

I feel that's a comparison that's taking advantage of the worst-case women's scenario (straight set, 55 minutes) and best-case men's scenario (five-setter that goes the distance in the fifth set). The debate will continue to roll on but I think any argument against equal pay is a bit disingenuous if it's cherry-picking two matches that shows the most extreme disparity possible.

On a completely different note, I had a brief check of various players' records and have more reason to show why "total number of Grand Slams won" is a simplistically bad measure to categorise players (e.g. that Murray is worse than Becker/Edberg). Consider:

• Jimmy Connors: "Only" won 8 Slams. But he only participated in the Australian Open twice (winning once and runner-up once). For the prime of his career (age 22-27) he was banned from or missed the French Open for five years and virtually never played the Australian. If he had played both of them throughout his career you'd think his total Slam count would be at least a dozen if not more.
• Bjorn Borg: Also only ever played the Australian Open once in his career, plus he retired at 26. Considering he reached the final of the three Slams he competed in during his last year, he obviously still had it at the point of retirement. His 11 Slams could have been considerably more.
• Rod Laver: The classic case of why things are always classified "from the Open Era". The prime five years of his life were taken from him (20 Grand Slams) when he was professional. Consider that he won the calendar Grand Slam both before and after those five years. You'd have to think he'd have won at least half of the 20 he'd missed (if not more) in which case his career tally would be a conservative estimate of 21 (more than Federer and in a shorter career).
• Roy Emerson: My first three are examples of players whose Grand Slam totals should be higher, but Emerson is one whose total should probably be lower. First of all, he benefited from Laver's (and others') removal from the field due to the professional era. Secondly, his total is boosted by 6 Australian Opens when many international players skipped the Australian due to the onerous travel.

So reflecting on all of this, while it is easy to talk about Federer/Nadal/Djokovic as being the greatest of all time, just looking at their leading Grand Slam totals and thinking this obviously puts them above all the other people in history doesn't tell the whole story. In any case, comparing eras is clearly fraught with danger. Any of the Big Three would probably have demolished the rest historically if you compare how they play now to back then, but give them the racquets, shoes, sports medicine and fitness regimens of those eras and it could be quite a different story. So comparing eras is down to hypotheticals.

That being said, I think it's safe to talk about Fed/Nadal/Djokovic in terms of comparing who is better than each other in the Big Three, which is probably what most people want to talk about.

[BigFatCoward]

Bookies go Djoko>Nadal>Fed for who will have the most slams when all said and done. Having 3 men with more than 20 slams each in the same era would be just phenomenal. And shows how much Murray got fucked. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Bookies go Djoko>Nadal>Fed for who will have the most slams when all said and done. Having 3 men with more than 20 slams each in the same era would be just phenomenal. And shows how much Murray got fucked. 

The fact that they're all doing this at the same time cements them as the top three in my opinion. And yeah, imagine Murray in a world where the big three don't exist. Over/under 30 slams? 

[BigFatCoward]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The fact that they're all doing this at the same time cements them as the top three in my opinion. And yeah, imagine Murray in a world where the big three don't exist. Over/under 30 slams? 

The other 3 would have won 50 playing in another era? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

The other 3 would have won 50 playing in another era? 

50 is a bit much, but of the three, I think Feds wins the most if the other two don’t exist. They needed him to push themselves, and no one loves the tour life more than Feds.

[ljkeane]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

50 is a bit much, but of the three, I think Feds wins the most if the other two don’t exist. They needed him to push themselves, and no one loves the tour life more than Feds.

Just take Nadal out of the mix and Federer pretty obviously wins another 4 or 5 French opens and at least one more Wimbledon.

[BigFatCoward]

He has lost 10 grand slam finals to Nadal and Djokovic. Harder to find semi final defeats to them. So hes at 30 straight away.