Wimbledon 2019

walshb

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Seems crazy to me that Halep gets the same prize money as Djokovic, and even more than Federer. I’m only talking bout this tournament, not their overall yearly earnings. Did anyone even watch the women’s final yesterday?? If you did you better have tuned in in time as it was over real quick.

I was only thinking that. The differences in skills and levels is insane...

Equal pay for that is also insane..

bada_bing

well that was some match, definitely full of drama and ended on a super tie break. Not impressed with the biased partisanship of the crowd, very disrespectful to the sport itself. I do feel djokovic did not play his best overall but he played just good enough when it mattered. Also it irks me when people here say he's a boring counter puncher, well i say it's boring when a player serves his way out through games. I think Roger has become too reliant on his serve to get him through games and it didn't work for him in the tie breaks and he lost on the long rallies. That's where the real tennis is but, hey, each to their own you know!

mzungu

Great match and I feel sorry for Federer. Having two championship points on your serve and then losing will be a tough one to get over.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

I was only thinking that. The differences in skills and levels is insane...

Equal pay for that is also insane..

they can barely be compared as sports such is the gulf in skill and level of competition.

look at the match today - has there ever been a match in women's tennis that is even remotely talked of in terms of being a classic - pretty sure not.

two legends on the court today while the dominant player in the women's game for the last 15 years is only in that position because she could serve and hit a rally point more like a man than the other ones. No finesse or artistry of skill involved. And a nasty piece of work as a person to boot.

forumdedum

Federer lost

forumdedum

SlickRic wrote: »

Federer hasn't been in his prime for at least 5 years now; during Djokovic's absolute peak. Plus Federer had a plethora of greats to deal with at the start of his career.

Nadal - no argument.

I don't see Nadal winning anymore apart from one or 2 French.

Djokovic did not impress me today. I don't think he will equal Federer's record.

Federer the greatest ever in my opinion. Past his prime and doesn't say much about Djokovic that he ran him so close today.

Doesn't say much for the sport that these 30 somethings are so dominant.

dominatinMC

walshb wrote:

Indeed. Nothing in it. Certainly wouldn’t use that match to make the GOAT claim for Nole.

Agree totally. As per usual, recency bias is playing a massive part in the GOAT argument. Of course Djoko is part of this argument but, typically, post-winning Wimbledon some are stating that he is guaranteed to break the slam record, etc. Most of these claims seems to be based on him remaining fit, and no new challengers - basically the status quo remaining as it is. Just my opinion, but I can't see this. Out of the Big3, I think Djoko (rather than Nadal) is most reliant on physicality - look at the stretches and lunges during a game, the baseline game based on defending/counterpunching, rather than attacking. I very much doubt that this will hold up as he gets older, especially compared to Feds game. Bringing Goran Ivanisevic into his camp may even be an addmitance of this. He may very well go on to break the records, but I don't think it's the foregone conclusion some seem to think it is. Let's see how it plays out, a few interesting slams ahead of us!

AbusesToilets

Feel Federer is on another level when it comes to skill and shots in his arsenal. He loses out in physicality to Nadal and Djokovic, which is an unfortunate facet of the game nowadays.

Christy42

bada_bing wrote: »

well that was some match, definitely full of drama and ended on a super tie break. Not impressed with the biased partisanship of the crowd, very disrespectful to the sport itself. I do feel djokovic did not play his best overall but he played just good enough when it mattered. Also it irks me when people here say he's a boring counter puncher, well i say it's boring when a player serves his way out through games. I think Roger has become too reliant on his serve to get him through games and it didn't work for him in the tie breaks and he lost on the long rallies. That's where the real tennis is but, hey, each to their own you know!

I am not a big fan of the serve bots either. However when they got into rallies it was generally just Fed trying to make stuff happen.

You can be a great returner and be entertainer like Halep was. She shot some great angles from difficult shots while Djokovic largely only seemed interested in getting the ball back over the net.

It is a pity we can't have a slow court for serves and a quick one for the rallies!

walshb

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Feel Federer is on another level when it comes to skill and shots in his arsenal. He loses out in physicality to Nadal and Djokovic, which is an unfortunate facet of the game nowadays.

I don’t think it is that he loses out, more they use it to be very competitive against him..he’s a brilliant from a defense/physicality point of view..

Some areas that are kind of underrated for Fed are his service return and his defensive skills. Both top drawer..

Overall greatest ever tennis specimen..

shamrock55

Felt sorry for fed, don't think he'll win another slam, can see him retiering nxt year anyway
Novak will win the nxt 4 wimbledons

WishUWereHere

velo.2010 wrote: »

Difficult not to suggest that Djokovic is the best player of all time. Dominant over Nadal and Federer in the best finals and with a better head to head record.

All things being equal, he will win plenty more Slams over the next few years to overtake Federer's Grand Slam record.

And until ND does overtake RF’s record of slams, don’t think you can say he is the best player of all time.

walshb

shamrock55 wrote: »

Felt sorry for fed, don't think he'll win another slam, can see him retiering nxt year anyway
Novak will win the nxt 4 wimbledons

Far too premature a prediction that...

Nole has a good chance to win 5/6 more slams, but it’s not near a certainty..

I predict he gets to 19..

AllForIt

take everything wrote: »

I do think Federer is annoyed that he lost because of tiebreaks.
He's not smiling at all

I don't agree with the tie-break in the final. I think Fed had the edge up to then still despite missing 2 match points earlier.

AbusesToilets

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't agree with the tie-break in the final. I think Fed had the edge up to then still despite missing 2 match points earlier.

I think he would've won out, his service game was far more consistent, and he was hitting far more winners etc. Djokovic was turtling for the tie breaker the whole game imo, but at the end of the day, he won.

josip

Well he can only be annoyed with himself.
Apart from the tie breaks, he won more points, more aces, played the better tennis, but when it came to the tie-breaks it all fell apart.
That it happened in all 3 tie-breaks is not a co-incidence.
Maybe choking is too strong, but he definitely didn't handle the pressure points as well as Djokovic.

Also, I don't think age and fitness had any bearing on the outcome of today's match.
Federer looked strong at the end of the 5th, he won many of the long rallies including the 35 shot one.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Far too premature a prediction that...

Nole has a good chance to win 5/6 more slams, but it’s not near a certainty..

I predict he gets to 19..

This whole number of slams thing is a bit misleading though.

How many majors would Federer have if they hadn't homogenised the courts and slowed them down to suit baseliners ?

25 ? 30 ?

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

This whole number of slams thing is a bit misleading though.

How many majors would Federer have if they hadn't homogenised the courts and slowed them down to suit baseliners ?

25 ? 30 ?

It is misleading, and court surfaces etc is not the answer..

Unfortunately the three of them overlapped..

All the same age and I reckon Fed has the most slams, then Nadal (due to FO) and then Nole.

Fed circa 15; Nadal 13 and Nole 12...

EagererBeaver

SlickRic wrote: »

velo.2010 wrote: »

Difficult not to suggest that Djokovic is the best player of all time. Dominant over Nadal and Federer in the best finals and with a better head to head record.

All things being equal, he will win plenty more Slams over the next few years to overtake Federer's Grand Slam record.

Federer hasn't been in his prime for at least 5 years now; during Djokovic's absolute peak. Plus Federer had a plethora of greats to deal with at the start of his career.

Nadal - no argument.

This was sarcasm, yes?

Nobody Federer had to contend with pre Nadal's first RG title in 2005, with the exception of an ancient Agassi, comes close to the level of the Big 3. Suggesting he was dealing with a plethora of greats is nonsense

Djokovic wasn't at his best today even though it was a great battle.

But the way that he handled the fulcrum points was top-drawer and deeply impressive.

walshb

I was thinking the same thing on that plethora of greats..start of his career, as in success, was 2003...Old Agassi and Hewitt, maybe Safin. Hardly plethora.

walshb

glasso wrote: »

Djokovic wasn't at his best today even though it was a great battle.

But the way that he handled the fulcrum points was top-drawer and deeply impressive.

Yes, Nole looked a step or two slower and not as intense as other years.

Fed, however, looked a bit more not near his better years..

MisterAnarchy

josip wrote: »

Well he can only be annoyed with himself.
Apart from the tie breaks, he won more points, more aces, played the better tennis, but when it came to the tie-breaks it all fell apart.
That it happened in all 3 tie-breaks is not a co-incidence.
Maybe choking is too strong, but he definitely didn't handle the pressure points as well as Djokovic.

Also, I don't think age and fitness had any bearing on the outcome of today's match.
Federer looked strong at the end of the 5th, he won many of the long rallies including the 35 shot one.

Federer hasnt played tie breaks well against Nadal and Djokovic in a long time.
He seems to get tentative and mis hit alot of easy shots.

Its kind of strange as tiebreaks used to be his forte , he rarely lost any at Wimbledon back in his peak .

Its definitely a mental thing ,he had the beating of Djokovic ,and if he had taken his opportunities he would have wrapped that match up in 4 sets .
If you let Djokovic get to a fifth set you are asking for trouble ,he seems to find a way to win .

I was impressed with how Federer played against both Nadal and Djokovic .
He served well, his forehand was good ,his backhand was good ,he moved well.
His shot selection was very good and he made few unforced errors bar the tie breaks.

Its the best I've seen him play in years at Wimbledon,a phenomenal performance for a man one month shy of his 38th birthday year .
A man bidding to become the oldest winner of any Grand Slam event in history, in addition to becoming the oldest to claim a men's singles title.

Cork Boy 53

walshb wrote: »

I was thinking the same thing on that plethora of greats..start of his career, as in success, was 2003...Old Agassi and Hewitt, maybe Safin. Hardly plethora.

I thought Pete Sampras played his last few Grand Slam tournaments at the same time as Federer was starting to achieve success. Granted he was well past his best by then.

EagererBeaver

Sampras' last match was the 02 US Open final. Federer won his first grand slam at Wimbledon in 03.

walshb

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

I thought Sampras played his last few Grand Slam tournaments at the same time as Federer. Granted he was well past his best by then.

He did, but Fed was not a slam champion at that stage..

Fed’s peak years? Nobody knows. That’s how bloody brilliant he’s been the past 15 years. For me it’s a collection of years. 2006-2008; 2008, 2011, 2012-2017

You can pick moments in the 15 years where he has played off the charts tennis..

2017 Oz is right in the mix, for example.

Sheridan81

Christy42 wrote: »

You can be a great returner and be entertainer like Halep was. She shot some great angles from difficult shots while Djokovic largely only seemed interested in getting the ball back over the net.

Halep only hit 13 winners against Serena who was barely moving. You can't seriously be suggesting she was hitting better angles than Novak today.

walshb

Fedfan2019 wrote: »

It's not exactly a strong era now though is it, Zverev, Kyrgios?

Not sure anyone is claiming that. Outside the big 3, the past decade or so, the opposition hasn’t been great.

BarryD2

glasso wrote: »

Djokovic wasn't at his best today even though it was a great battle.

But the way that he handled the fulcrum points was top-drawer and deeply impressive.

Yeah, it was a great battle - real 'gladiator' stuff. Djokovic just seemed to know how to shrug off his weak shots and win the points when it came down to brass tacks.

EagererBeaver

Fedfan2019 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This was sarcasm, yes?

Nobody Federer had to contend with pre Nadal's first RG title in 2005, with the exception of an ancient Agassi, comes close to the level of the Big 3. Suggesting he was dealing with a plethora of greats is nonsense

Safin on his day could beat anyone on hardcourt, Mario Ancic on his day could beat anyone on grass. Gonzalez had arguably the best forehand the game has ever seen and a winning head to head against Djokovic even if that was when Djokovic was young. People forget these players and how good they were.

Mario Ancic? He beat Federer in the first round in 02 and made a semifinal a few years later. That's more or less the sum total of his elite level career.

Is that what we're talking about when we use the phrase "a plethora of greats"?!

sxt

Three women won more prize money than Federer at wimbeldon this year. That's not right

MisterAnarchy

sxt wrote: »

Three women won more prize money than Federer at wimbeldon this year. That's not right

Roger is hardly short of a few bob .
He'd gladly play for free I'd imagine.

BorneTobyWilde

sxt wrote: »

Three women won more prize money than Federer at wimbeldon this year. That's not right

Who are the three

yerwanthere123

Damn

https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/1150478601994874880?s=19

forumdedum

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Damn

https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/1150478601994874880?s=19

If I were Djokovic I would'n't want that trophy. I'd want to earn it with less negative tactics. Though that don't make sense if you're Djokovic. I would feel Federer lost it, that I did not win it.

Shame as there were many good moments in the match. Djokovic attitude in set 2 was shocking imo.

SlickRic

Plethora of greats was a stupid thing for me to say.

I just remember he at least had Agassi, Sampras, Safin (when his head was right), peak Roddick (kind of) but that's hardly plethora.

I think I'm just sick of this era. Novak has it made. Ageing Fed and he's made to beat Nadal on anything other than clay. And once they're beaten, there's so little to trouble him at the Slams.

I'd love to see peak Fed v peak Novak.

BorneTobyWilde

Roger's legacy is going to be threatened now. No one believed anyone else could reach 20 grand slams, but Nadal and Djokovic are closing that gap fast, while Federer is running out of time. He was devastated today, even his 8 Wimbledon win record is there to be got at. Djokovic on 5 now.

forumdedum

Fedfan2019 wrote: »

Players can play whatever way they want, who wins 3 sets is all that matters. Djokovic had plenty of good attacking moments too.

Yes he has his victory. At his peak Federer would have wiped the floor with him.

forumdedum

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Roger's legacy is going to be threatened now. No one believed anyone else could reach 20 grand slams, but Nadal and Djokovic are closing that gap fast, while Federer is running out of time. He was devastated today, even his 8 Wimbledon win record is there to be got at. Djokovic on 5 now.

Can't see Nadal winning much more and I'm not convinced by Djokovic who has gone off the boil before.

Very disappointed with Djokovic today, he used to be more interesting to watch. Found him so dull. He was lucky Fed was older. Still was great to watch an artist in action until he bottled it. The bottling occurred in his later years. I knew it was Novak's when Federer made 4 poor errors in 1st set tie-break and that was always going to re-occur.

forumdedum

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Roger's legacy is going to be threatened now. No one believed anyone else could reach 20 grand slams, but Nadal and Djokovic are closing that gap fast, while Federer is running out of time. He was devastated today, even his 8 Wimbledon win record is there to be got at. Djokovic on 5 now.

Would be a great shame.

forumdedum

walshb wrote: »

I don’t think it is that he loses out, more they use it to be very competitive against him..he’s a brilliant from a defense/physicality point of view..

Some areas that are kind of underrated for Fed are his service return and his defensive skills. Both top drawer..

Overall greatest ever tennis specimen..

Best ever, no doubt. Shame he had to age.

forumdedum

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm just in to say that a tie break to decide a grand slam is just wrong imo.
You can do whatever you like in regular tournaments but leave the final set of grand slams alone please.

Agree completely. There was nothing wrong with the old way.

BorneTobyWilde

forumdedum wrote: »

Can't see Nadal winning much more and I'm not convinced by Djokovic who has gone off the boil before.

Very disappointed with Djokovic today, he used to be more interesting to watch. Found him so dull. He was lucky Fed was older. Still was great to watch an artist in action until he bottled it. The bottling occurred in his later years. I knew it was Novak's when Federer made 4 poor errors in 1st set tie-break and that was always going to re-occur.

Djokovic has won 5 of the last 9 Wimbledon's , 6 of the last 9 Austrailian Opens, and 3 of the last 8 Us Opens, and on course to have a go at his years.

Federer has only one Wimbledon is 7 years, and hasn't won a US Open for 12 years.

EagererBeaver

Fedfan2019 wrote: »

We have official match data from 1991 AO onwards. This is only the second time in 28 years (time period that we have ATP data) that the losing player in a slam final won more total points, more return points, and the dominance ratio. The other... was the 2009 AO Final.

Instances below of players with a greater dominance who lost the match.

2019 Wimbledon: Federer, 1.15 over Djokovic
2016 USO: Djokovic, 1.11 over Wawrinka
2001 Wimbledon: Rafter, 1.07 over Ivanisevic
2015 USO: Federer, 1.02 over Djokovic
1999 RG: Medvedev, 1.02 over Agassi
2008 Wimbledon: Federer 1.02 over Nadal
2009 AO: Federer 1.01 over Nadal

As always, there's some lies, damned lies and statistics about the place. Federer couldn't break Nadal in Wimbledon in 08. He won two breakers. Your can't say he was "more dominant".

And pulling out H2H records of lesser but still clearly top players, e.g. Safin against Djokovic fit example is meaningless, as their careers barely overlapped. Safin beat him in Wimbledon 06? Who cares. Djokovic didn't reach his true potential until 2011.

Federer didn't have to contend with Sampras either. He beat him in 01 when Fed was still a comparative nobody. Sampras retired before Fed reached elite level.

forumdedum

Deleted User wrote: »

There is little dignity in that win. Djokovic will never be the people's champion. Roger had him by the tail and he knows it.

I would not want that trophy/prize.

josip

forumdedum wrote: »

I would not want that trophy/prize.

Moot, Djokovic has it and he's keeping it for the next 12 months.

forumdedum

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Djokovic has won 5 of the last 9 Wimbledon's , 6 of the last 9 Austrailian Opens, and 3 of the last 8 Us Opens, and on course to have a go at his years.

Federer has only one Wimbledon is 7 years, and hasn't won a US Open for 12 years.

Federer is 38. Good for Novak. I saw some of his wins when he was interesting. in fact many times I cheered for him. Not now, negative approach.

When I see some Fed artistry by Novak I'll applaud.

forumdedum

josip wrote: »

Moot, Djokovic has it and he's keeping it for the next 12 months.

Good for him.

forumdedum

Fedfan2019 wrote: »

I didn't calculate the dominance ratios. Likewise Djokovic coupdn't win a set against Federer without a tiebreak. The dominance ratio is interesting.

40 games played before Novak broke Federer. At least players like Agassi went for it. I don't watch negativity. I get bored.

dominatinMC

forumdedum wrote: »

Can't see Nadal winning much more and I'm not convinced by Djokovic who has gone off the boil before.

Very disappointed with Djokovic today, he used to be more interesting to watch. Found him so dull. He was lucky Fed was older. Still was great to watch an artist in action until he bottled it. The bottling occurred in his later years. I knew it was Novak's when Federer made 4 poor errors in 1st set tie-break and that was always going to re-occur.

Nadal is definitely winning at least another two FO. As the old saying goes, there are three certainties in life; death, taxes and Nadal winning the French. On that count alone, he will equal, if not surpass Fed. Unfortunately for Fed fans, he is not the kind of guy who will give up until he gets the record. As for Djoker, I don't know, he's the great enigma of the Big3, can go AWOL at anytime, although appears extremely motivated now so who knows. I just have a sneaking suspicion that he won't catch Fed.