Djokovic Should Thank Federer

Last nights final was high quality. A tension in the air and both Federer and Djokovic producing some spectacular tennis. A close match with Federer getting the lead in both sets only for Djokovic to steal it back adding to the drama. But maybe best all Djokovic looking at his very best. It's been a while since I've seen such good tennis from Djokovic. IMO there are only two players that force him out of his robotic comfort zone... Nadal and Federer. Federer made Djokovic look great. Djokovic should thank Federer.

Yes, I love it, now when Djokovic plays great it is because federer makes him look good! You guys are great really the level of fedal myopia, particularly federer myopia is laughable. They really need to diagnose this widespread online mania this cult of personality is really dangerous

socal1976

Be honest didn't Djokovic produce some of his most watchable tennis this year last night?

Yes and fed was much more watchable playing Djoko than he is when he plays ferrer or Tsonga as well. In tennis the best matches are with to greats who can bring out the best in each other, no one disputes that. But you seem to think it is a one way street. Novak is not robotic he has had great matches with a number of different players. Nadal is the one one who basically hits 90 percent of his shots and serves to fed's backhand, now if you want to say someone is robotic in their approach Nadal is a better candidate. Although myself I don't think any of the top 4 guys are robotic and very few of the top 10 guys as well.

To be fair Djokovic IS great, he doesnt need Federer to make that known. Most observers could see the guy was special when he first came on tour. Federer is still a great player but by and large his measure has been found out by Djokovic and Nadal. When they play you expect Novak or Rafa to win now. The power base has shifted.

However, what is abundantly clear is that at 31 Federer is still playing amazing tennis.

Of course Djokovic is great in what he has achieved but his style of play can sometimes be Davydenkoish robotic (effective but not particularly pretty). Much as I like Djokovic I don't always find him interesting to watch. Last night Djokovic not only got the result but was forced into playing some eye catching tennis. IMO it was because of the variety that Federer provides.

Before anyone says anything I think Davydenko is great too...

So HE, does Rafa also make Djokovic look great?

Yes. I did say so. They have played some great matches. I note a little skepticism? What matches do you think show Novak at his best? By that I mean playing his best tennis to watch.

I just wondered.
Looking back I enjoyed Djokovic vs Tsonga at RG...cant think of many more. But then I'm not a huge fan of his...nor antifan. He's a bit vanilla for me somehow but there is no denying he's one hell of a competitor.

Hey look HE, you're not going to get me saying he's a more attractive player to watch than Nadal or Federer. I've even called his game robotic myself on here...his style speaks of massive "drilling" and his technique is not flashy in any area. In particular his FH is rather old fashioned in technique....kind of Agassi like but more western, and nothing like Nadal or Federer's who are able to play it with more variety. Technically speaking, Djokovic uses hardly any stretch shortening cycle on the shot....the whip-like motion that Nadal and Federer espouse.

What tends to make him more interesting to watch is his on-court persona but given many guys arent good enough to push him to extremes you only tend to see Nadal or Federer doing that so their matches stand out. I find the Djoko vs Murray matches not particularly interesting given their similar styles and oncourt personas. If he's not playing Rafa or Roger I dont go out of my way to stay at home and catch one of his matches whereas I will do for the others.

lydian wrote:I just wondered.
Looking back I enjoyed Djokovic vs Tsonga at RG...cant think of many more. But then I'm not a huge fan of his...nor antifan. He's a bit vanilla for me somehow but there is no denying he's one hell of a competitor.

Hey look HE, you're not going to get me saying he's a more attractive player to watch than Nadal or Federer. I've even called his game robotic myself on here...his style speaks of massive "drilling" and his technique is not flashy in any area. In particular his FH is rather old fashioned in technique....kind of Agassi like but more western, and nothing like Nadal or Federer's who are able to play it with more variety. Technically speaking, Djokovic uses hardly any stretch shortening cycle on the shot....the whip-like motion that Nadal and Federer espouse.

What tends to make him more interesting to watch is his on-court persona but given many guys arent good enough to push him to extremes you only tend to see Nadal or Federer doing that so their matches stand out. I find the Djoko vs Murray matches not particularly interesting given their similar styles and oncourt personas. If he's not playing Rafa or Roger I dont go out of my way to stay at home and catch one of his matches whereas I will do for the others.

Exactly my sentiments.. although I would find Rafa's matches more interesting if he speeded up between points. The slowness really grates. When I watch his matches on youtube, I let it DL for a while and then forward all the inbetweens.

I agree there emancipator, you'll never see me defending Rafa's slowness between points. But there is no denying he plays the game in his own unique style that makes it interesting to watch, and despite all the grinder tags thrown his way he is a shotmaker.
Yep I often record matches...to fast forward between serves and the breaks too...for any match. You can cut a 1hr 45 match to around 30mins!

Yes I agree, he is a unique player, I may even write an article on Rafa that will surprise a lot of people.

emancipator wrote:Yes I agree, he is a unique player, I may even write an article on Rafa that will surprise a lot of people.

I am looking forward to that!

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:I just wondered.
Looking back I enjoyed Djokovic vs Tsonga at RG...cant think of many more. But then I'm not a huge fan of his...nor antifan. He's a bit vanilla for me somehow but there is no denying he's one hell of a competitor.

Hey look HE, you're not going to get me saying he's a more attractive player to watch than Nadal or Federer. I've even called his game robotic myself on here...his style speaks of massive "drilling" and his technique is not flashy in any area. In particular his FH is rather old fashioned in technique....kind of Agassi like but more western, and nothing like Nadal or Federer's who are able to play it with more variety. Technically speaking, Djokovic uses hardly any stretch shortening cycle on the shot....the whip-like motion that Nadal and Federer espouse.

What tends to make him more interesting to watch is his on-court persona but given many guys arent good enough to push him to extremes you only tend to see Nadal or Federer doing that so their matches stand out. I find the Djoko vs Murray matches not particularly interesting given their similar styles and oncourt personas. If he's not playing Rafa or Roger I dont go out of my way to stay at home and catch one of his matches whereas I will do for the others.

Exactly my sentiments.. although I would find Rafa's matches more interesting if he speeded up between points. The slowness really grates. When I watch his matches on youtube, I let it DL for a while and then forward all the inbetweens.

Once before a. Nadal match I really needed to p!ss. I couldn't go pre-match, as the ad-breaks didn't last very long (and I wouldn't want to miss some analysis and pearls of wisdom from Greg Rusedski etc.); so I waited for the match to start, and as soon as Nadal was serving I could trust between points I would be safe to go and not miss any action.

anyone ever seen those videos when they shorten it to just the points?

You can get a b03 set match done in 10-15mins!

They once calculated a 4 hr match between Sampras and Ivanisevic boiled down to 4 mins of the ball actually moving. Imagine if they took their time between points too!

Looking forward to that article too emancipator

lydian wrote:What tends to make him more interesting to watch is his on-court persona but given many guys arent good enough to push him to extremes you only tend to see Nadal or Federer doing that so their matches stand out.

I think this is a very astute point.

The reasons I like Novak so much are his personality and the narrative of his matches and his career. The personality is constant but the narrative improves with the quality of the opposition. Novak's ability to get out of tight spots and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is becoming truly astonishing. But to get that excitement, the opponent needs to be good enough to really challenge him.

I do however enjoy watching Novak play anyone. I can readily accept that he doesn't have some of the flourishes that Roger has, but I find something compelling in the consistency and efficiency of his game. It's maybe like how some people consider the finely-balanced workings of fine watch as elegant when others might see it as just mechanical. To me, the 'functionality' is elevated to such a level that I get pleasure from watching it function.

Eye of the beholder and all that!

In a way you could say that Fed "gifted" the match to Djokovic. Federer started the match literally humiliating Djokovic but after he missed a couple of opportunities for the double break, he literally wasn't the same player anymore, a shadow of himself. Same thing happened at the end of each set. Why is this happening so often to Federer, across the last 4 years or so is a mystery to explain. I can only think of a lack of full motivation, or better,a lack of hunger, as a reason for that.

Novak is a very aggressive shot maker who is otherworldly in many areas of shotmaking. If you have seen him return serve you know exactly what I am talking about. Or hit the screaming up the line backhand. As for his forehand we saw last night that he has no fear of going right at Roger's forehand unlike most opponents who direct everything at Roger's backhand. Novak's forehand is frightening when he is hitting it well, among the best on tour. He has a lot of flourish to his game and I find him very watchable. He also spends more time up in the court and at net when compared to the average guy in the top ten or on tour, and yet he never gets credit for that either.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In a way you could say that Fed "gifted" the match to Djokovic. Federer started the match literally humiliating Djokovic but after he missed a couple of opportunities for the double break, he literally wasn't the same player anymore, a shadow of himself.

I watched the match live at the O2... and I didn't feel that was the case.

Yes Fed won the first 3 games, but that was only one break.
And in that break Djoko hit 2 UEs and one double fault....
Remember Federer was serving for the 2nd set 5-4 40-15.

No if you could see Novak's gestures and facial expressions you could sense his feelings were pretty low, but probably you couldn't at the stadium ( that's a rubbish stadium the O2).

socal1976 wrote:Novak is a very aggressive shot maker who is otherworldly in many areas of shotmaking. If you have seen him return serve you know exactly what I am talking about. Or hit the screaming up the line backhand. As for his forehand we saw last night that he has no fear of going right at Roger's forehand unlike most opponents who direct everything at Roger's backhand. Novak's forehand is frightening when he is hitting it well, among the best on tour. He has a lot of flourish to his game and I find him very watchable. He also spends more time up in the court and at net when compared to the average guy in the top ten or on tour, and yet he never gets credit for that either.

There was a stat that showed novak went into the federer backhand over 80% of the time.
I'm not sure I agree with that about being up at the net.

I would say volleying is the weakest part of his game and I really feel he doesn't feel comfortable coming forwards. I think he was 1/6 at one point on net points won (this was more out of feds playing that short slice and bringing him in) with feds at 8/9.

There was one instance when djoko retreated pretty hastily to the back of the court when he was much closer to the net than to the baseline, ala murray being scared to finish points off in the US open final.

I was in Row M, in section 112 so it was quite close.
Yes of course Djokovic's gestures were low, he had just made 2 unforced errors and a double fault to give his first service game away!

lydian wrote:I just wondered.
Looking back I enjoyed Djokovic vs Tsonga at RG...cant think of many more. But then I'm not a huge fan of his...nor antifan. He's a bit vanilla for me somehow but there is no denying he's one hell of a competitor.

Hey look HE, you're not going to get me saying he's a more attractive player to watch than Nadal or Federer. I've even called his game robotic myself on here...his style speaks of massive "drilling" and his technique is not flashy in any area. In particular his FH is rather old fashioned in technique....kind of Agassi like but more western, and nothing like Nadal or Federer's who are able to play it with more variety. Technically speaking, Djokovic uses hardly any stretch shortening cycle on the shot....the whip-like motion that Nadal and Federer espouse.

What tends to make him more interesting to watch is his on-court persona but given many guys arent good enough to push him to extremes you only tend to see Nadal or Federer doing that so their matches stand out. I find the Djoko vs Murray matches not particularly interesting given their similar styles and oncourt personas. If he's not playing Rafa or Roger I dont go out of my way to stay at home and catch one of his matches whereas I will do for the others.

lydian

I agree with everything you say here! It is exactly what I was (trying!?) to say.

I wasn't saying Djokovic was more attractive to watch than Federer and Nadal.

lydian wrote:To be fair Djokovic IS great, he doesnt need Federer to make that known. Most observers could see the guy was special when he first came on tour. Federer is still a great player but by and large his measure has been found out by Djokovic and Nadal. When they play you expect Novak or Rafa to win now. The power base has shifted.

However, what is abundantly clear is that at 31 Federer is still playing amazing tennis.

I don't quite agree with that statement, yes Nadal on most occasion had answers to Fed at his prime, Djoko on the other hand was no way near as successful against Fed at his prime. Fed had a massive lead in h2h before 2011 kicked off, Fed at 31 still very much capable of beating a prime 25 year old Nole.

Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

Yeah IC again if you take away Fed's 4 wins against a teenage Djoko when fed was at his absolute prime then Djoko leads their head to head series. I love how novak's wins over a post prime fed don't count as much, yet Fed's wins in his absolute prime over an 18 and 19 year old Djoko do count. Nice fair accounting IC, but very typical of the fed myopia on this site. Since Novak's win in Canada in 07 he actually has played fed dead even. Prior to that I think fed was in absolute peak and Novak was practically in diapers. So wrong again, just like you were wrong on the silly premise of that TiiT for tat thread you threw out. If Roger's taking candy from baby Novak counts as wins Novak's wins against a federer of this quality should count all the same.

socal1976 wrote:Yeah IC again if you take away Fed's 4 wins against a teenage Djoko when fed was at his absolute prime then Djoko leads their head to head series. I love how novak's wins over a post prime fed don't count as much, yet Fed's wins in his absolute prime over an 18 and 19 year old Djoko do count. Nice fair accounting IC, but very typical of the fed myopia on this site. Since Novak's win in Canada in 07 he actually has played fed dead even. Prior to that I think fed was in absolute peak and Novak was practically in diapers. So wrong again, just like you were wrong on the silly premise of that TiiT for tat thread you threw out. If Roger's taking candy from baby Novak counts as wins Novak's wins against a federer of this quality should count all the same.

Is it really necessary to attack whole sections of the forum every time there's a debate with someone?

Exactly what outcome is anticipated or desired by doing that?

hawkeye wrote:IMO there are only two players that force him out of his robotic comfort zone... Nadal and Federer

Strange that at the Wimby final, when the roof went on and from the 30 minute mark onwards on Sunday night, that Fed played some of the best stuff we've seen in years

I think you'll find that all the Top 4 now bring out the best in each other, simply because they know they have to be at their best

Sunday's win was impressive, simply because Roger is not known for coming back from his rivals - too many easy wins earlier in his career meant he often then didn't have a Plan B, when these players got on Top

The big change with him, which means he's still a contender is that he's finally decided that he needs to adapt to the match as it progresses a compliment to first Rafa, then Novak and now Andy

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

How exactly do you know this?

BB accuses Socal of having a go at posters - but this comment is designed to wind a poster up

It is true, there are double standards on these boards

invisiblecoolers wrote:

lydian wrote:To be fair Djokovic IS great, he doesnt need Federer to make that known. Most observers could see the guy was special when he first came on tour. Federer is still a great player but by and large his measure has been found out by Djokovic and Nadal. When they play you expect Novak or Rafa to win now. The power base has shifted.

However, what is abundantly clear is that at 31 Federer is still playing amazing tennis.

I don't quite agree with that statement, yes Nadal on most occasion had answers to Fed at his prime, Djoko on the other hand was no way near as successful against Fed at his prime. Fed had a massive lead in h2h before 2011 kicked off, Fed at 31 still very much capable of beating a prime 25 year old Nole.

Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

It's an unprovable scenario but a point worth you making; I personally couldn't imagine Nadal, Djokovic or Murray at 31 contending with Federer at 25.

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

How exactly do you know this?

BB accuses Socal of having a go at posters - but this comment is designed to wind a poster up

It is true, there are double standards on these boards

No, I suggested socal in that case attacked half the forum when debating with one person. I didn't "accuse", I asked politely. Stop trying to wind a situation up.

ic's comment is a direct tennis opinion.

There's absolutely no connection between the two.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Fed at 31 still very much capable of beating a prime 25 year old Nole

Again, how do you know this? Has Nole peaked? I've no idea - but I will know in about 5 years

Lydian comment was perfectly balanced giving great credit to the great Nole and Roger.

You on the other hand, let's be honest here, are making underhand comments about Nole in an effort to get Socal going and then your protectors join in the bare baiting!!

I dunno why everyone on these boards cannot give all these great players the same respect, for their achievements, as friends of mine (who now have more of an interest in Tennis than they ever have done) thanks to these great players

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

How exactly do you know this?

BB accuses Socal of having a go at posters - but this comment is designed to wind a poster up

It is true, there are double standards on these boards

No, I suggested socal in that case attacked half the forum when debating with one person. I didn't "accuse", I asked politely. Stop trying to wind a situation up.

ic's comment is a direct tennis opinion.

There's absolutely no connection between the two.

I'm not getting into this for much longer, becasue it's opinion so no-one is right or wrong. However, if IC hadn't decided to basically imply that Nole has peaked and has no chance of been as good as Fed at 31, then Socal wouldn't have answered in an admittedely 'aggressive' manner.

People have to face the fact, that there is a chance that he could get near Fed's achievement. Not assume that he's having a two year lucky spell.

Maybe IC doesn't mean it to come across this way - but it does and I'm not even a Nole fan

Sorry, but what does saying one player wouldn't be able to match the achievements of another have to do with respect?

Their achievements are not equal. It's perfectly fine for ic to point that out.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nole @ 31 would have had no answers to Fed of 25, indeed could have even faced double bagel on some matches.

How exactly do you know this?

BB accuses Socal of having a go at posters - but this comment is designed to wind a poster up

It is true, there are double standards on these boards

No, I suggested socal in that case attacked half the forum when debating with one person. I didn't "accuse", I asked politely. Stop trying to wind a situation up.

ic's comment is a direct tennis opinion.

There's absolutely no connection between the two.

I'm not getting into this for much longer, becasue it's opinion so no-one is right or wrong. However, if IC hadn't decided to basically imply that Nole has peaked and has no chance of been as good as Fed at 31, then Socal wouldn't have answered in an admittedely 'aggressive' manner.

People have to face the fact, that there is a chance that he could get near Fed's achievement. Not assume that he's having a two year lucky spell.

Maybe IC doesn't mean it to come across this way - but it does and I'm not even a Nole fan

Oh so one guys tennis opinion is at fault for another guys baiting of half the forum?

He can assume what he likes, it's an opinion forum. There's loads of it all over the place.

You're out of order making a big deal of his opinions and suggesting he shouldn't express them for fear of offending someone. What he actually said was that Djokovic at 31 wouldn't be able to compete with federer at 31. Given they are close now, Djokovic will have declined by 31 and Federer has declined since 25 that's not exactly controversial, but even if it was it's legitimate opinion and you shouldn't be getting annoyed about it.

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but what does saying one player wouldn't be able to match the achievements of another have to do with respect?

Their achievements are not equal. It's perfectly fine for ic to point that out.

BB. As one of he most intelligent posters I've come across, please stop 'straight batting' this. The comment was a wind up, hence the . It's a perfectly valid opinion, but in the context of the discussion a wind up

I'm was always amused when my son used to tease Biscuit, our cat and then complained that every time he went near it, he got attacked but no other family members did!!!

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but what does saying one player wouldn't be able to match the achievements of another have to do with respect?

Their achievements are not equal. It's perfectly fine for ic to point that out.

BB. As one of he most intelligent posters I've come across, please stop 'straight batting' this. The comment was a wind up, hence the . It's a perfectly valid opinion, but in the context of the discussion a wind up

I'm was always amused when my son used to tease Biscuit, our cat and then complained that every time he went near it, he got attacked but no other family members did!!!

Since socal is currently the author of 90% of the strident and inflammatory articles I really don't think he needs rescuing.

One poster threw a (reasonable) opinion up with a thumbsup, the other referenced a forum full of "fed myopia". Now which one have you jumped in to condemn?

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but what does saying one player wouldn't be able to match the achievements of another have to do with respect?

Their achievements are not equal. It's perfectly fine for ic to point that out.

BB. As one of he most intelligent posters I've come across, please stop 'straight batting' this. The comment was a wind up, hence the . It's a perfectly valid opinion, but in the context of the discussion a wind up

I'm was always amused when my son used to tease Biscuit, our cat and then complained that every time he went near it, he got attacked but no other family members did!!!

Since socal is currently the author of 90% of the strident and inflammatory articles I really don't think he needs rescuing.

One poster threw a (reasonable) opinion up with a thumbsup, the other referenced a forum full of "fed myopia". Now which one have you jumped in to condemn?

I'm leaving this now - but I was reacting to you having a go at Socal and not taking into account the reason why

Socal was wrong, but as a fan of a player who also rarely gets the beneift of the doubt by neutrals - I can understand his frustrations

Let's leave it


Until the next time

I just wish the Murray fanatics on here didn't have such chips on their shoulders.

geddit?



PS I wasn't "having a go", I was asking politely

PPS This post is a joke between bantro & me, before anyone else goes off the deep end.

i am so wound up right now with so many different chips on my shoulders i don't know what to think.
up is white, black is east

LuvSports! wrote:i am so wound up right now with so many different chips on my shoulders i don't know what to think.
up is white, black is east

Ha ha! If you feel like that now just imagine how you would feel if someone sat in your chair...

"But I managed to get a lot of shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline. ... That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."

Pretty interesting stuff from Djokovic after the match.

banbrotam wrote:

Strange that at the Wimby final, when the roof went on and from the 30 minute mark onwards on Sunday night, that Fed played some of the best stuff we've seen in years

I wasn't talking about Federer playing watchable tennis. I would say he nearly always plays pretty stuff. I was remarking on how he forced Novak to produce some pretty stuff of his own (something that is rarer for him).

banbrotam wrote:

I dunno why everyone on these boards cannot give all these great players the same respect,

Ha ha! Maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit but what I think your hoping for is Murray to be regarded equally to Federer and Nadal?

bogbrush wrote:I just wish the Murray fanatics on here didn't have such chips on their shoulders.

geddit?



PS I wasn't "having a go", I was asking politely

PPS This post is a joke between bantro & me, before anyone else goes off the deep end.

I'm very balanced thank you. I have a chip on each shoulder

Trouble is ours are only the straight cut chips I'm sure the Fed fans will have the much more interesting crinkle cut variety.

banbrotam wrote:

I dunno why everyone on these boards cannot give all these great players the same respect,

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit but what I think your hoping for is Murray to be regarded equally to Federer and Nadal?

Actually he is just asking that the players all be given respect. They have earned it. What you are talking about is entirely different.

Calder106 wrote:Trouble is ours are only the straight cut chips I'm sure the Fed fans will have the much more interesting crinkle cut variety.

Theirs will have little jackets on with a 17 emblazoned on the back