2015 Wimbledon

[bato]

Djokovic arrived to the scene when Fed & Nadal were at their peak. Yes, he took some big losses. Yes, he made excuses and struggled with bizarre medical conditions. But the fact is, Djokovic never, ever gave up. He went out of his way to change his diet, attitude and improved his game significantly.

He eventually started beating these top guys and cracked the Nadal and Federer puzzle after numerous attempts - when no one else could. What he did next was simply incredible and seriously undervalued by tennis fans these days. Starting from 2011, he goes on a ridiculous streak where he was tennis' invincible. Then shows his incredible durability & consistency by dominating the next four years. Fast forward to 2015, wins the Aussie Open... again... then fails at an attempt to win an elusive RG title - that would have taken a huge mental toll. The fact is... he didn't give up. Stormed back and won a Wimbledon title against the greatest of all time on his favourite surface. Respect.

Simply impossible to undervalue just how good his career has been. I'm glad to be his fan.

 

[Foggle]

You don't know. Everyone expected Dimitrov to burst through and win Slams but he is useless. There is a big gap between this generation and the Kyrios one which has a few potential Slam winners. The generation in the middle is hopeless

Have to agree to disagree

 

[vast]

Yep has 3 years at his peak which he should get 6 Slams (2 a year isn't that much considering apart from Murray, Fed/Rafa aren't as big a threat. I sort of hope he ends on 17 just so both can be regarded as being just as good

He wont get 17. Roger is the greatest for a reason.

 

[Foggle]

Djokovic arrived to the scene when Fed & Nadal were at their peak. Yes, he took some big losses. Yes, he made excuses and struggled with bizarre medical conditions. But the fact is, Djokovic never, ever gave up. He went out of his way to change his diet, attitude and improved his game significantly.

He eventually started beating these top guys and cracked the Nadal and Federer puzzle after numerous attempts - when no one else could. What he did next was simply incredible and seriously undervalued by tennis fans these days. Starting from 2011, he goes on a ridiculous streak where he was tennis' invincible. Then shows his incredible durability & consistency by dominating the next four years. Fast forward to 2015, wins the Aussie Open... again... then fails at an attempt to win an elusive RG title. Didn't give up. Stormed back and won a Wimbledon title against the greatest of all time on his favourite surface. Respect.

Simply impossible to undervalue just how good his career his been. I'm glad to be his fan.

Funnily enough Fed turned 30 in 2011

17 - 9

 

[bato]

Funnily enough Fed turned 30 in 2011

17 - 9

Djokovic is 29 next year... and is still dominating. What's your point?

 

[Foggle]

Djokovic is 29 next year... and is still dominating. What's your point?

My point is when it goes it goes quickly. Novak won't ever surpass Federer. Just like Brisbane won't pass Gold Coast on the ladder

 

[bato]

My point is when it goes it goes quickly. Novak won't ever surpass Federer. Just like Brisbane won't pass Gold Coast on the ladder

I'll see you again in a few years. If you're still around... Freo might actually have a premiership by then.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

My point is when it goes it goes quickly. Novak won't ever surpass Federer. Just like Brisbane won't pass Gold Coast on the ladder

He might. But youre too scared to admit it.

 

[vaughany]

US Open kicks off on August 31

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Federer and Nadal had 15 and 14 slams respectively at Novak's current age. It's extremely unlikely Djokovic wins a further 8 slams. The main thing he has going for him is that the generation after his (Dimitrov/Raonic/Tomic/Nishikori etc) has turned out to be arguably the weakest generation in tennis history. We still don't really have a clear idea about who the next slam winners are going to be.

I think he can reach Nadal's tally given the talent black hole existing for current players aged early to mid 20s, but Federer's 17 has to be borderline impossible. Weeks at number 1 record is in big trouble though.

 

[Thrawn]

Novak is such a spoil sport, I wanted to see a bit of history.

Oh well.

 

[jod23]

Federer and Nadal had 15 and 14 slams respectively at Novak's current age. It's extremely unlikely Djokovic wins a further 8 slams. The main thing he has going for him is that the generation after his (Dimitrov/Raonic/Tomic/Nishikori etc) has turned out to be arguably the weakest generation in tennis history. We still don't really have a clear idea about who the next slam winners are going to be.

I think he can reach Nadal's tally given the talent black hole existing for current players aged early to mid 20s, but Federer's 17 has to be borderline impossible. Weeks at number 1 record is in big trouble though.

It's crazy to think of how good Roger Federer is. I think over the years, particularly in his decline, we have just taken him for granted.

This is a bloke who just narrowly lost to Novak in the Wimbledon Final just one month shy of his 34th birthday. Djoker is quite clearly right now, the best player in the world. He has been the world number one for 53 straight weeks, has won the Australian Open and Wimbledon this year and lost the French Open final narrowly in a huge upset.

Novak right now is unrivaled. Yet here is a 34 year old bloke making Djokovic play at his absolute best just to secure victory.

I keep mentioning his age because winning slams past your 30th birthday is extremely difficult. Here is the list of blokes who have done it in the open era.

Petr Korda - 30
Andres Gomez - 30
John Newcombe - 30
Roger Federer - 30
Pete Sampras - 30
Arthur Ashe - 31
Andres Gimeno - 34
Andre Agassi x 2 - 30, 32
Jimmy Connors x 2 - 30, 31
Rod Laver x 4 - 30, 30, 30, 31
Ken Rosewall x 4 - 33, 35, 36, 37

That is just 11 guys since 1968 to win majors past their 30th birthday. Only Agassi, Sampras and Federer have done it since the turn of the century.

So since turning 30 in 2011 this is what Roger Federer has done.

At Wimbledon he has won it once and made two more finals losing to Novak Djokovic both times.

He has made four Australian Open Semi-Finals losing to Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Nadal.

At the French Open he made the final once losing to Nadal and made another SF losing to Djokovic.

At the US Open he has made two semi-finals and lost to Djokovic and Cilic.

I bring this up because Djokovic and Nadal are two of the greatest tennis players ever who are in their prime just as Federer's powers are waning. So it has taken two all time greats in their prime to stop Roger time and time again from probably winning more slams well into his thirties.

Federer at 34 is probably quite clearly the second best player on the planet still. That is remarkable.

Federer was quite unlucky that Nadal and Djokovic came along when they did. In his prime he had no peers but when age began to catch up, Djoker and Nadal would stop him winning more slams. Djokovic is lucky in this regard that Federer is now 34 and Nadal is pretty much done. He has nobody to stop him, even well into his 30's considering how weak the next batch of tennis players who are coming through are now.

 

[bullish23]

Once Novak's legs go he's cooked. His game relies on his ability to fetch the ball, just like Hewitt used to

Dude. Seriously. Retire gracefully.

Hewitt and Novak should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Your not John Newcombe are you?

 

[Shiv]

Foggle is obviously a troll so there is no need to reply to him. Any chance nadal will ever come back from his knee troubles or is it safe to say that he is pretty much done? How long do you guys think Fed can play to this level? Last nights match was incredible, wish it went to 5 sets though!

 

[eaglespremiers]

Foggle is obviously a troll so there is no need to reply to him. Any chance nadal will ever come back from his knee troubles or is it safe to say that he is pretty much done? How long do you guys think Fed can play to this level? Last nights match was incredible, wish it went to 5 sets though!

I hope he comes back strongly.
Top tier tennis is not the same without him.

 

[vaughany]

Replay is on Fox Sports now. (Different commentary)

 

[MC Bad Genius]

It's crazy to think of how good Roger Federer is. I think over the years, particularly in his decline, we have just taken him for granted.

This is a bloke who just narrowly lost to Novak in the Wimbledon Final just one month shy of his 34th birthday. Djoker is quite clearly right now, the best player in the world. He has been the world number one for 53 straight weeks, has won the Australian Open and Wimbledon this year and lost the French Open final narrowly in a huge upset.

Novak right now is unrivaled. Yet here is a 34 year old bloke making Djokovic play at his absolute best just to secure victory.

I keep mentioning his age because winning slams past your 30th birthday is extremely difficult. Here is the list of blokes who have done it in the open era.

Petr Korda - 30
Andres Gomez - 30
John Newcombe - 30
Roger Federer - 30
Pete Sampras - 30
Arthur Ashe - 31
Andres Gimeno - 34
Andre Agassi x 2 - 30, 32
Jimmy Connors x 2 - 30, 31
Rod Laver x 4 - 30, 30, 30, 31
Ken Rosewall x 4 - 33, 35, 36, 37

That is just 11 guys since 1968 to win majors past their 30th birthday. Only Agassi, Sampras and Federer have done it since the turn of the century.

So since turning 30 in 2011 this is what Roger Federer has done.

At Wimbledon he has won it once and made two more finals losing to Novak Djokovic both times.

He has made four Australian Open Semi-Finals losing to Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Nadal.

At the French Open he made the final once losing to Nadal and made another SF losing to Djokovic.

At the US Open he has made two semi-finals and lost to Djokovic and Cilic.

I bring this up because Djokovic and Nadal are two of the greatest tennis players ever who are in their prime just as Federer's powers are waning. So it has taken two all time greats in their prime to stop Roger time and time again from probably winning more slams well into his thirties.

Federer at 34 is probably quite clearly the second best player on the planet still. That is remarkable.

Federer was quite unlucky that Nadal and Djokovic came along when they did. In his prime he had no peers but when age began to catch up, Djoker and Nadal would stop him winning more slams. Djokovic is lucky in this regard that Federer is now 34 and Nadal is pretty much done. He has nobody to stop him, even well into his 30's considering how weak the next batch of tennis players who are coming through are now.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/happy-birthday-nadal-youre-probably-too-old-to-pass-federer/ - This article was written last year and it seems quite prophetic now. It's a statistical model showing that the probability of Nadal overtaking Federer (in terms of slams) was quite slim. It'd be interesting to see what the likelihood of Djokovic doing it, but I imagine it would be even slimmer.

 

[stoisle]

GOAT Kyrgios is 100% against him

So is Pat Rafter!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I hope he comes back strongly.
Top tier tennis is not the same without him.

I said last year it would take him 12 months. Will be better in the US Hardcourt season, US Open and in 2016.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

I think this could be the end of Nadal. He'll be around the top 10, perhaps pushing for a spot in the world tour finals, but I think we'll see more Wawrinka than Nadal now at the business end of grand slams and masters.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think this could be the end of Nadal. He'll be around the top 10, perhaps pushing for a spot in the world tour finals, but I think we'll see more Wawrinka than Nadal now at the business end of grand slams and masters.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Lets see how he is at the start of 2016. Most experts and in fact Rafa himself has said it a few times. He is more looking at 2016 as a realistic target. He is slowly getting confidence back.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

How Djokovic won:

From ATP Website

One more ball.

That was the foundation on which Novak Djokovic, and coach, Boris Becker, built a masterful game plan to win the Serb’s third Wimbledon title Sunday.

Djokovic defeated Roger Federer 7-6(1), 6-7(10), 6-4, 6-3, primarily by extending rallies, and making Federer bend to his own baseline intentions, much more than the opposite way.

There were several moments in time where the match could have swung either way, but the overall body of work was far more controlled by the Serb, and that greatly helped when push came to shove.

Federer played more baseline points in the final (126) than any other match, averaging 32 per set - six more per set than against Andy Murray in the semi-finals.

It was exactly the plan that super-coach, Boris Becker, had put into place.

“Obviously we knew that Roger is going to go all power, he is not going to wait, and go for slow baseline rallies,” Becker said post-match. “He started the way he finished with Murray, very aggressive, not giving Novak any time, any rhythm.”

“There was not much between them in the first two sets, but as the match went on I had a good feeling. I felt that eventually Novak would get hold of Roger’s serve, get him into baseline rallies, take advantage of his younger legs, and that was the difference.”

Federer averaged winning 52 per cent of his baseline points going into this year’s final, but that number was hammered down to 40 per cent by Djokovic’s superior baseline arsenal. Ironically, those were the exact same losing numbers for Federer at the 2014 Championships. It was simply a matter of hitting copy / paste 12 months later for the Serb.

While Federer’s groundstrokes had sparkled against Murray, they mainly misfired against Djokovic.

In the final, Djokovic won the battle of short rallies of 0-4 shots long 103-94, lost the medium length rallies of 5-9 shots 27-34, and dominated extended rallies of nine shots or more 18-10. Federer didn’t play that many extended rallies in his first three rounds combined.

Djokovic Forehand

Djokovic’s forehand was extremely impressive in the final, hitting 17 winners to Federer’s 15, while only committing seven (Federer 17) unforced errors. Djokovic hit it harder and flatter than normal against Federer’s primary baseline weapon.

“There was no option,” Becker said. “If you don’t hit it you lose anyway. Go through the ball, be aggressive, go head-to-head with Roger, or you are going to lose.”

“At the French Open he (Novak) played too tentative, he wanted Stan (Wawrinka) to miss the balls, but you are not going to win a Grand Slam final by waiting for the other guy to miss.”

“Novak was ready to go five hours, and I think it showed,” Becker added.

Second Serves

The other key battle ground that Djokovic dominated in similar fashion to their 2014 final was second serves. In successive finals, Djokovic’s second serve winning per centage remained a strength, while Federer’s got significantly worse.

Djokovic won 60 per cent of his second serves in today’s final and 65 per cent last year at SW19 against Federer. The Swiss, seven-time champion had won 66 per cent of his second serve points the past two weeks, but could only muster 49 per cent in the final. Last year, those numbers also massively dropped from 62 per cent to 44 per cent.

Becker scouted Federer’s impressive semi-final victory over Murray from the Royal Box on Centre Court, and saw specific areas for Djokovic to attack in the final.

“Wimbledon finals are not won in the semi-final,” Becker knowingly pointed out.

“Roger peaked in the semi-final. He could not have played better, but I have seen Andy Murray play better as well. Of course, you get carried away with the legend, Roger has won it seven times, but I felt if Novak could get hold of the return, get Roger involved in the baseline rallies, just the extra point all the time, eventually he was going to wear him down.”

Federer Attacking

Federer served and volleyed on 22 per cent (21/94) of his first serve points, and 25 per cent (11/44) on seconds serves, overall winning a healthy 72 per cent (23/32). He was also solid with net points won, winning 73 per cent (42/58) at the front of the court. But it should have happened even more, as Djokovic was able to get Federer into 126 baseline exchanges, that made Federer’s pathway forward less clear, and blunted his overall aggression.

What Federer needed was more attacking than normal against Djokovic, but he was not unwavering with the tactic.

Overall, Djokovic served magnificently, returned hard and deep, and took advantage of the small windows of opportunity that presented themselves better than Federer.

Djokovic knew Federer was not going to miss on the first couple of shots in a rally, but he a made a point of repeatedly asking the question on the third shot, or the fifth, or the seventh.

One more ball created one more opportunity to miss, and delivered one more title on the world’s biggest stage.

 

[bato]

Novak right now is unrivaled. Yet here is a 34 year old bloke making Djokovic play at his absolute best just to secure victory.

While you're absolutely right about Federer, I can't help to feel like this "age" thing is a bit overused. Federer is Federer. Federer will always be Federer and his game relies on accuracy and footwork most of the time - meaning he'll always be a damn good player despite age. A few years of difference between him and Djokovic/Rafa really isn't that much. When you think about it, in 2011, people were doubting Djokovic's ability to be as a good as Federer was when he was 28-29. Then as each year passed it turned into a "we'll see if Rafa and Novak can play as well as Roger when they're 30... 31... 32.. 33 etc." We've been hearing the same thing for years now.

I can see Djoko genuinely dominating and winning slams at 30+ if he actually plays on. Some doubts whether he wants to or not seeing as though he's got children to look after. Time will tell I guess.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

While you're absolutely right about Federer, I can't help to feel like this "age" thing is a bit overused. Federer is Federer. Federer will always be Federer and his game relies on accuracy and footwork most of the time - meaning he'll always be a damn good player despite age. A few years of difference between him and Djokovic/Rafa really isn't that much. When you think about it, in 2011, people were doubting Djokovic's ability to be as a good as Federer was when he was 28-29. Then as each year passed it turned into a "we'll see if Rafa and Novak can play as well as Roger when they're 30... 31... 32.. 33 etc." We've been hearing the same thing for years now.

I can see Djoko genuinely dominating and winning slams at 30+ if he actually plays on. Some doubts whether he wants to or not seeing as though he's got children to look after. Time will tell I guess.

The only thing better than seeing Murray lose was seeing Federer lose and everyone in the stadium going home sad lol