Tennis 2015

ZDwyr said:
Yeah the match-up really suits Nadal. There is no way Novak would be as dominant as he has been if he was up against a younger Federer though.
Click to expand...

Why? Djokovic started beating a 27/28 year old Federer on regular basis in three sets. Was Federer old then?
 
Mihajlovic said:
Well that's non-sense. Out of the 21 wins Djokovic has over Federer only three of them were five-setters. Four wins were actually in two sets and the vast majority of wins was in three sets. How's Djokovic 'grinding down' Federer?
Click to expand...

Watch the matches for starters. Federer can't keep up when the rallies are long and Djokovic prefers to play that way against Federer. If the points are shorter then it suits Fed. Also this has nothing to do with set counts. Federer vs Djokovic three setter sometimes is the length of a five setter for two other players.

Also being Serbian doesn't mean you have to be blinkered. I don't get why people just have to support tennis players like football teams. I prefer sitting back and knowing that I got to watch three of the greatest players ever. Rather than questioning when Federer won his grand slams. Or you could tell me when a 34 year old who is constantly getting to finals, who is world number 2 and winning masters. I don't think Djokovic or Nadal will be doing that at 34. But that would be natural because it rarely happens in tennis.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Why? Djokovic started beating a 27/28 year old Federer on regular basis in three sets. Was Federer old then?
Click to expand...

The head to head was 13-6 when Federer turned 30. Then when Djokovic reached his peak and Federer was starting to go past his peak that he started to dominate the rivarly.
 
The knowledge that you can't last 5 set against your opponent alone is a massive handicap going into a match.

Federer is put under the pressure of winning the first 2 sets against Djokovic in a GS to have a realistic chance of beating him. Pretty tall task given that Novak is a brilliant player at the peak of his power.

I always thought of the turning point of their match up as the 09 US Open. Fed up by 2, got beaten back to 2-2, played brilliantly in set 5 and had 3 match points which Djoker then saved and went on to win the match. Before that, Roger regularly beat Djokovic.
 
Bojan11 said:
Watch the matches for starters. Federer can't keep up when the rallies are long and Djokovic prefers to play that way against Federer. If the points are shorter then it suits Fed.
Click to expand...

It would have been like that at any time in their careers though, surely? Djokovic is more a base liner who is happy to hang tough in long rallies, Federer has spent a career winning points quickly.
 
Bojan11 said:
Watch the matches for starters. Federer can't keep up when the rallies are long and Djokovic prefers to play that way against Federer. If the points are shorter then it suits Fed. Also this has nothing to do with set counts. Federer vs Djokovic three setter sometimes is the length of a five setter for two other players.

Also being Serbian doesn't mean you have to be blinkered. I don't get why people just have to support tennis players like football teams. I prefer sitting back and knowing that I got to watch three of the greatest players ever. Rather than questioning when Federer won his grand slams. Or you could tell me when a 34 year old who is constantly getting to finals, who is world number 2 and winning masters. I don't think Djokovic or Nadal will be doing that at 34. But that would be natural because it rarely happens in tennis.
Click to expand...

That's again wrong. The vast majority of matches played between those two took ca. 2 hours. Only four times have they played matched clocked above the three-hours mark and Djokovic has won three of them and Federer one.

I'm not disputing that Federer isn't a great player, I'm just think he cannot possible be called the greatest ever, having an even H2H record against Djokovic and a negative H2H record against Nadal. If anyone deserves that epithet surely it's Nadal. And simply in terms of the competition, the vast majority of all GS wins by Nadal and Djokovic they have won against the top players of their time. Federer however was able to feast on titles in a three year period where he played against not great but good to average players. That's just a statistical fact. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve what he's won but just that he is extremely overhyped in that sense. Nadal literally dominated Federer and he doesn't get half of the praise and acknowledgment.
 
Nuts said:
It would have been like that at any time in their careers though, surely? Djokovic is more a base liner who is happy to hang tough in long rallies, Federer has spent a career winning points quickly.
Click to expand...

Nah, take the 2012 Wimbledon for example. Federer was beating Djoker on long rallies at ease. When everything comes together for him physically he can more than match Djokovic in that department.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Nah, take the 2012 Wimbledon for example. Federer was beating Djoker on long rallies at ease. When everything comes together for him physically he can more than match Djokovic in that department.
Click to expand...
Naaaaah, disagree mate.

He's not a natural baseliner - other than to use it as a conscious tactic. Edberg was hired to get Roger back to winning points quickly. As soon as a rally has gone beyond a certain point ND always looks likely to win it.
 
Nuts said:
Naaaaah, disagree mate.

He's not a natural baseliner - other than to use it as a conscious tactic. Edberg was hired to get Roger back to winning points quickly. As soon as a rally has gone beyond a certain point ND always looks likely to win it.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree then. Roger is a weaker baseliner than Djokovic now because he always get impatient and try to finish the point quick, something he wouldn't have been with the stamina to last the distance.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
We'll just have to disagree then. Roger is a weaker baseliner than Djokovic now because he always get impatient and try to finish the point quick, something he wouldn't have been with the stamina to last the distance.
Click to expand...
Are you really saying Roger has been predominantly a baseliner at some point? For me, he was a brilliant all rounder who at one point could slug it out from the baseline but I'd say throughout his career he's used athleticism, brilliance and an attacking outlook to avoid having to. He's tried both against Djokovic and neither works at the moment.
 
Nuts said:
Are you really saying Roger has been predominantly a baseliner at some point? For me, he was a brilliant all rounder who at one point could slug it out from the baseline but I'd say throughout his career he's used athleticism, brilliance and an attacking outlook to avoid having to. He's tried both against Djokovic and neither works at the moment.
Click to expand...
Don't know why or how you came to that conclusion. I merely stated that at his peak physically Roger was well capable of matching Djokovic from the baseline, something he can't do now due to his diminished endurance.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Of course Federer could only play against whoever the rival is at that moment but he won the majority of his 11 GS between 04-07 against players who can hardly be considered in the same group as Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. So yes, in that sense he was lucky to rack up all those numbers before the 'real competition' arrived. Nadal is by far the greater of those two, won all his GS against top ten players and six times against the No1 Federer.

PS. Djokovic won all of his first 10 GS against Federer, Nadal, and Murray (bar one against Tsonga). Now compare this competition in regards to the first 10 GS that Federer won in 04-07, and you're telling me Federer hasn't been lucky?
Click to expand...

Again that has nothing to do with luck. He played the players who were around and still does. You can't overlay different periods and play the Djokovic would've beaten him had he been in his prime five years earlier card. It just doesn't work like that, otherwise you could apply it to Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, and a host of other players.

To Federer's credit, he is still the #2 at age 34 which is an astonishing feat, which none of the other pretenders to his crown will match.
 
Raoul said:
Again that has nothing to do with luck. He played the players who were around and still does. You can't overlay different periods and play the Djokovic would've beaten him had he been in his prime five years earlier card. It just doesn't work like that, otherwise you could apply it to Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, and a host of other players.

To Federer's credit, he is still the #2 at age 34 which is an astonishing feat, which none of the other pretenders to his crown will match.
Click to expand...

I know it's got nothing to do with luck and I said that Federer can obviously only play against whatever other player is around. But the fact remains that in a sense Federer was very fortunate to benefit from a weaker competition from 04-07 winning a trillion of trophies in a period where there was no other great players around that could have challenged him.

I would say the same if in the next three years Djokovic wins a number of GS against players who aren't even in the top ten, or something like that.

Yes it's amazing that Federer can still compete on a high level at this age but we obviously need to wait and see if anyone will do the same.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I know it's got nothing to do with luck and I said that Federer can obviously only play against whatever other player is around. But the fact remains that in a sense Federer was very fortunate to benefit from a weaker competition from 04-07 winning a trillion of trophies in a period where there was no other great players around that could have challenged him.

I would say the same if in the next three years Djokovic wins a number of GS against players who aren't even in the top ten, or something like that.

Yes it's amazing that Federer can still compete on a high level at this age but we obviously need to wait and see if anyone will do the same.
Click to expand...

So basically it had nothing to do with luck, but Federer was essentially lucky to have risen at the time he did. It's a pointless thought experiment.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I know it's got nothing to do with luck and I said that Federer can obviously only play against whatever other player is around. But the fact remains that in a sense Federer was very fortunate to benefit from a weaker competition from 04-07 winning a trillion of trophies in a period where there was no other great players around that could have challenged him.
Click to expand...
Maybe the reason no one could challenge him was because he was so good? I mean Roddick's all important H2H with Djokovic is 5-4 in Roddick's favour, he can't have been that bad.
 
Giggsy92 said:
Maybe the reason no one could challenge him was because he was so good? I mean Roddick's all important H2H with Djokovic is 5-4 in Roddick's favour, he can't have been that bad.
Click to expand...

This.

Of course the players Federer was beating weren't at Nadal's level or current Novak level. However Roddick and Safin in particular were more than handy players.
 
Safin also had a winning record against Djokovic.

Hopefully Nadal takes this tie break.
 
Nadal has thrown this tie break away. It all started with a basic overhead he missed.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The knowledge that you can't last 5 set against your opponent alone is a massive handicap going into a match.

Federer is put under the pressure of winning the first 2 sets against Djokovic in a GS to have a realistic chance of beating him. Pretty tall task given that Novak is a brilliant player at the peak of his power.

I always thought of the turning point of their match up as the 09 US Open. Fed up by 2, got beaten back to 2-2, played brilliantly in set 5 and had 3 match points which Djoker then saved and went on to win the match. Before that, Roger regularly beat Djokovic.
Click to expand...

That was the 10 Open. In 09, Federer beat Djokovic in the SF (remember the tweener?), then narrowly lost against a demonic Del Potro after leading 2:1 in sets.
It's a damn shame about Del Potro's wrist btw., injuries where the only thing to keep him from being a multiple major winner in my opinion.


Mihajlovic said:
But the fact remains that in a sense Federer was very fortunate to benefit from a weaker competition from 04-07 winning a trillion of trophies in a period where there was no other great players around that could have challenged him.

I would say the same if in the next three years Djokovic wins a number of GS against players who aren't even in the top ten, or something like that.
Click to expand...

This argument always works on the assumption that Federer won so many slams because his opposition wasn't as strong, instead of the other, also completely valid assumption that even though is opponents were top players, he was simply that much better. Remember how good Hewitt and Safin really were at their peaks? How they destroyed Sampras? How Safin could be unbeatable? How fecking consistent and good Davydenko was? The mad genius of Nalbandian? I bet all of those players would have a bunch of majors now and theirs would be regarded as a golden generation of competitiveness on the highest level, were it not for Federer.

And it's not like today's competition is that great. Ferrer, Berdych and Wawrinka were around back then, but not amongst the highest group of players. Today, at 30+, they are going stronger than ever. I actually think that today's competition, outside the big four (all great players), is pretty weak, especially the generation of players that's supposed to dominate the top 10, the age 23-27, is being outclassed by a bunch of players that have been around for ages. I'm quite sure that all of the players from Federer's generation I mentioned above would be on a level quite close to the big four. I can definitely see peak Safin being #1 or at least competing for it in today's tennis.
 
Last edited:
Fine margins. Could have easily been straight sets to Nadal but it goes the way of Stan. Rafa will be fuming with those two tie breaks, fecked them both up when in a good position.
 
Disappointed for Nadal as some of the shots he played were like old Rafa. Just needs to improve his serve.
 
Bojan11 said:
Disappointed for Nadal as some of the shots he played were like old Rafa. Just needs to improve his serve.
Click to expand...
Stan's a good player but just annoying how he lost that. Not outclassed but not taking points.

Overall though, since the US Open, there have been positive signs for Rafa. Now onto London, where I hope I get to see him.
 
Rafa's defense is definitely coming back. He's running down a lot more balls and that's getting him close in matches.

His offense is still is crap though. He's relying heavily on the other player to make unforced errors after long rallies.
 
how do I find out who is playing at what time at the ATP tour finals?

I am in London that week and would like to go for some matches..
 
Last edited:
zing said:
how do I find out who is playing at what time at the ATP tour finals?

I am in London that week and would like to go for some matches..
Click to expand...
Just have to wait for the draw. I'd imagine that's done on the Friday before the tournament starts, but not sure.

I've got tickets for the Monday evening session so I'm anxious about who I will actually be seeing.

If you wait for the draw and there's a Fedal match in the round robin, I'd imagine the tickets that are left will fly quick and the tickets on viagogo will jump in price.

I'm not doing it, but if you have the money and time get tickets for tickets for two session so you can guarantee yourself seeing a top player.
 
saivet said:
Just have to wait for the draw. I'd imagine that's done on the Friday before the tournament starts, but not sure.

I've got tickets for the Monday evening session so I'm anxious about who I will actually be seeing.

If you wait for the draw and there's a Fedal match in the round robin, I'd imagine the tickets that are left will fly quick and the tickets on viagogo will jump in price.

I'm not doing it, but if you have the money and time get tickets for tickets for two session so you can guarantee yourself seeing a top player.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Shame Nadal didn't make it but great to see he is improving.

Djokovic now apparently first player with twenty and more wins over top-10 rivals. Nadal (22), Federer (21), Murray, Stan, Berdych (20).
 
Another title for Novak. One stat which amazed me was that he won 72% of his 2nd serves. Higher than his first serve points won percentage
 
73-5 this season - absurd. If it wasn't for an inspired Stan performance, we'd be looking at the greatest tennis year ever.
 
A bit worrying how Murray just doesn't seem close to beating him. Djokovic just seems comfortable.
 
Bojan11 said:
A bit worrying how Murray just doesn't seem close to beating him. Djokovic just seems comfortable.
Click to expand...
Despite his horrific head to head record against Djokovic, I thought it was interesting to see before the match that in finals they were level with 6 wins a piece.
 
VP said:
73-5 this season - absurd. If it wasn't for an inspired Stan performance, we'd be looking at the greatest tennis year ever.
Click to expand...

No disrespect to Stan but I think Novak was too tired in the end, he played an exhausting five-setter against Murray over two days before the final with Stan.
 
Mihajlovic said:
No disrespect to Stan but I think Novak was too tired in the end, he played an exhausting five-setter against Murray over two days before the final with Stan.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, you can't seem to give anybody credit besides Djokovic.

Wawrinka played out of this world that game. Go watch it. Not sure what Djokovic would have done against some of those back hands. It also wasn't the first time he's played like that Djokovic too. Twice in the Australian open they had similar matches like that and they both won one each.

Wawrinka after the first set played like he had nothing to lose and thought if he is going to lose he might as well lose swinging. On that day his shots were paying off. Another day he might have had 100 unforced errors.
 
amazing year and amazing player. Murray is just unlucky that he's playing against perhaps the best players of all time and he's still doing pretty well, imo. very few players can push Djokovic to a fifth set in GS match and I bet Murray will do it again before Nadal and Federer.
 
Bojan11 said:
Jesus Christ, you can't seem to give anybody credit besides Djokovic.

Wawrinka played out of this world that game. Go watch it. Not sure what Djokovic would have done against some of those back hands. It also wasn't the first time he's played like that Djokovic too. Twice in the Australian open they had similar matches like that and they both won one each.

Wawrinka after the first set played like he had nothing to lose and thought if he is going to lose he might as well lose swinging. On that day his shots were paying off. Another day he might have had 100 unforced errors.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it. Every post reeks of "I'm Serbian and therefore Djokovic is the best ever!".
 
Bojan11 said:
Jesus Christ, you can't seem to give anybody credit besides Djokovic.

Wawrinka played out of this world that game. Go watch it. Not sure what Djokovic would have done against some of those back hands. It also wasn't the first time he's played like that Djokovic too. Twice in the Australian open they had similar matches like that and they both won one each.

Wawrinka after the first set played like he had nothing to lose and thought if he is going to lose he might as well lose swinging. On that day his shots were paying off. Another day he might have had 100 unforced errors.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Wawrinka really played fantastic tennis that day and deserved to win, no doubt. I was just commenting on Djokovic's fitness and it looked a bit off after the second set already, and normally you'd expect this guy to have more than enough juice for five sets. So whether the previous match had a strong effect on him or not, obviously none of this is Wawrinka's concern who played an incredible match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.