Federer or Djokovic?

Ok, let's give this a good day or two for the forum to consider.

Who's going to win the semi? Here's my thoughts:

For Djokovic: He's on the hottest of streaks, he is almost impossible to get shots past, he beat Fed last year and things have gone his way since, Federer is inconsistent this year, he was warned at the French not to take him lightly.

For Federer: Djokovic is showing signs of fraility, Federer has two very good wins (Cilic, Tsonga) under his belt and is "tournament toughened" without being too beat up, he is highly motivated to grab #17, he is TMF.

What does the forum think?

I went for Federer.

Would've gone for the rain had it been a choice

What an idiot I am. Any way to edit the poll so I spell the guys name correctly?

As I've posted before, my head goes for Djokovic but my heart goes for Fed, so naturally I voted for Fed...

Fed's record @ the USO continues to better than @ Wimbledon (in terms of % win) so it would be brilliant if he took it a step further and went into the final and also claim the Open era record @ the USO but first let's see this match. Looking forward to this one!

My own opinion is that it's a true 50/50.

I think Djokovic is starting to show some cracks around the edges; he was fortunate not to be two sets down to Tipsy yesterday, and even then the injury was what decided it. He'd also looked a bit vulnerable against Dolgopolov with a lot of uncharacteristic errors, though we have to factor in the wind that day, which was very strong.
Federer has looked quite good; the two tough matches against big hitters will have sharpened him and he looks to have his game face on.

On the other hand, Djokovic is unquestionably the man of 2011 and right now his best will take it for him.
Also Federer has this nasty habit of having dips.

I'm leaning by 50.1 to 49.9 to Federer; I think Nole needs to attack him very hard to win and I have a sneaky feeling there's something stopping him.
Frankly though I might be back on tonight to change my mind.

I have went for Novak Djokovic - the player of 2011 by some distance but Federer has shown semblances of form in this tournament so it should be very interesting.

I think Djokovic wins it. Federer has been making a fair amount of UE's despite some good wins.

Djokovic gets too many back for me.

Ordinarily I'd go firmly for Djokovic, but there are three reasons for me having doubts and thinking that Fed has a close to evens chance:

(a) the RG win by Federer showing what he can do still when he's on form - but by God he needs to be at a peak which he's only rarely shown this year, and probably only vs. Monaco this tournament

(b) the fact that there are signs in Djoko's recent form and his withdrawal from Cincy citing a shoulder that Djoko's run, if not stuttering, is not anymore hitting the peaks of the spring and summer

(c) announcement of the Monday Final - for all Fed's protestations that it makes no difference to him I could not help wondering if the knowledge last year that Nadal would face the winner in the final the very next day having had a short earlier SF vs. Youzhny might have had a greater effect on the older man as the Fed/Djoko 5-setter wore on. That may be nonsense, as top players in the zone can cut out thoughts about the next match, but if it has any effect I think the announcement at this stage will help the older man knowing that he can go into the SF swinging give it his all and have a full day to recover before a final should he win.

Barry,

Fed did actually concede (later) that the final was on his mind during that semi against Novak. He mentioned that he decided to conserve energy in sets 2 and 4 once he'd gone down a double break purely because he knew that he'd have to come out for the final the next day. He also said that he regretted that decision and would not make the same mistake again.

I think for Federer to win this match he clearly has to play cleaner and with more consistency.

He also has to vary his game and use all the tools at his disposal. Simply going toe-to-toe with Novak from the baseline with pace is not going to work. Novak loves pace and angles. Roger really has to mix it up. Throw in a lot of slices, pick his moments to come to the net and also rip any short balls. I think the tactic of occasionally looping his FH or BH without pace is a good one that can keep him in rallies when he is stretched.

I also think the body serve may be a good option in the tight moments.

Novak needs to stop being so passive in the rallies. He got away with it against Tipsy by playing great defense, but Roger on form is a much better finisher and hits closer to the lines. Novak needs to dictate more with his FH and get Fed moving side to side.

If Novak can control the centre of the baseline and stretch Fed out on both sides than he is the favourite in my view.

emancipator wrote:Barry,

Fed did actually concede (later) that the final was on his mind during that semi against Novak. He mentioned that he decided to conserve energy in sets 2 and 4 once he'd gone down a double break purely because he knew that he'd have to come out for the final the next day. He also said that he regretted that decision and would not make the same mistake again.

I hadn't picked that up

emancipator wrote:Roger really has to mix it up. Throw in a lot of slices, pick his moments to come to the net and also rip any short balls. I think the tactic of occasionally looping his FH or BH without pace is a good one that can keep him in rallies when he is stretched.

I also think the body serve may be a good option in the tight moments.

Slices, changes of pace, killing anything that sits up short, coming to the net, and probably also the odd drop shot to stop Djoko thinking he can duke it out from the baseline all day - easy eh?

barrystar wrote:

emancipator wrote:Roger really has to mix it up. Throw in a lot of slices, pick his moments to come to the net and also rip any short balls. I think the tactic of occasionally looping his FH or BH without pace is a good one that can keep him in rallies when he is stretched.

I also think the body serve may be a good option in the tight moments.

Slices, changes of pace, killing anything that sits up short, coming to the net, and probably also the odd drop shot to stop Djoko thinking he can duke it out from the baseline all day - easy eh?

Indeed.. but for Federer today he has to use ALL his craft and guile to beat these guys.

Gone are the days when he could just tee-off from the baseline.

emancipator wrote:Barry,

Fed did actually concede (later) that the final was on his mind during that semi against Novak. He mentioned that he decided to conserve energy in sets 2 and 4 once he'd gone down a double break purely because he knew that he'd have to come out for the final the next day. He also said that he regretted that decision and would not make the same mistake again.

To be fair, if he waited until a double break down it won't have made any difference.

I agree this indicates it could have been lurking (if he's in energy saving mode then maybe he was bearing that in mind during rallies generally) but in itself it wouldn't have changed the outcome - Fed's not going to bank on coming back from two breaks down is he (although Nole's serve has looked very unsteady these last two matches).

Djoko if Nadal beats Andy.
Fed if Andy beats Nadal.

wow wrote:Djoko if Nadal beats Andy.
Fed if Andy beats Nadal.

Federer - my heart and my gut instinct telling me the same this time.

Fed has looked pretty solid, with the occasional ue, but he looks fresh and motivated.

Novak, on the other hand, looks as if he is playing on reserves and that they are fast depleting. Even if Nole does come through the semi, I doubt he can lift the trophy this year.

Andy Murray ..........time to step up....you can do it!

Called Federer over Tsonga in straights...

Calling Federer over Djokovic in 4 sets...

Roger is playing well, moving superbly, which is the key to everything else, along with his serve, which was tremendous his last two matches. Tsonga was not moving at his best, but I think with the two aforementioned comments, that Federer will take this contest.

I think Djokovic's year, is starting to have a cumulative effect, and so staying with my feeling that this is Federer's tournament.

We didn't really see the real Djokovic in those first 2 sets last night, and remember the Serb was struggling in QF of Wimbledon before saving his best till last. Either way i'm sure Federer will be confident for the win in this match if he serves and hits the lines the way he has been it'll be on his racquet, Novak will probably play 10x better than he did vs. Janko, exciting match in prospect..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:We didn't really see the real Djokovic in those first 2 sets last night, and remember the Serb was struggling in QF of Wimbledon before saving his best till last.

Good point. I have been worried about Djoko's chance of beating Federer since AO 07 and expressed my concerned then in a forum. Though I was wrong that year, I knew on HC he woudl be Roger's toughest opponent as he has proved a few times since then.

However, the match is in Fed's racquet more than Djoko's....but Fed needs his best racquet.

Federer looks good so far this tournament but I think Djokovic will win. I look for it to be a tight 4 or 5 set match. I think Novak's movement and his return ability will be enough to fluster fed and make him work for every point.

My heart says Roger, but brain struggles. Let heart prevail well beyond SF.

Not me manojchandra, beyond being a Novak fan at this point its anyone but Roger. Not because Roger is a bad guy or i have animosity towards him. More because a segment of his fans on the internet are so annoying. At this point if beelzebub himself played roger in a 5 setter I would root for the prince of darkness. The arrogance and disrespectful nature of many of Roger's fans has basically turned me against any more success for him.No fans of Nadal disrespect and attack Federer or Djoko, no fans of Djoko do it to Nadal or Fed. At least nowhere near the level of the fed extremist fans. They act like they are the ones who have won 16 grandslams. Roger is a great guy, a lot of his fans aren't as endearing. Seriously, no other group of fans disrespects other great players and their accomplishments like the federrettes (extremist fed fan), I used to hope Roger would win another slam and stick around. Now there isn't a single player on the ATP tour that I would not support against Roger that is how distasteful and irritating a large segment of his fans are.

You allow your opinions to be altered by other people?

That's not a wise policy.

socal1976 wrote:Not me manojchandra, beyond being a Novak fan at this point its anyone but Roger. Not because Roger is a bad guy or i have animosity towards him. More because a segment of his fans on the internet are so annoying. At this point if beelzebub himself played roger in a 5 setter I would root for the prince of darkness. The arrogance and disrespectful nature of many of Roger's fans has basically turned me against any more success for him.No fans of Nadal disrespect and attack Federer or Djoko, no fans of Djoko do it to Nadal or Fed. At least nowhere near the level of the fed extremist fans. They act like they are the ones who have won 16 grandslams. Roger is a great guy, a lot of his fans aren't as endearing. Seriously, no other group of fans disrespects other great players and their accomplishments like the federrettes (extremist fed fan), I used to hope Roger would win another slam and stick around. Now there isn't a single player on the ATP tour that I would not support against Roger that is how distasteful and irritating a large segment of his fans are.

Sad but true.

It's amazing how some "fans" can create such resentment that the supporters of other players have to leave what is supposed to be an open forum and form their own.

Anyway as long as posters don't take some of what is posted too seriously then this and other forums provide some light relief from the "real world".

Isn't that the entire point of these things?

Jeez, some people are wound up way too tight.

BB, it is one thing to say I don't like Nadal or Novak's style of play, it is another thing to smear their character, to attack their career accomplishments and to name call opposing fan bases. But isn't it odd that 90 percent of this type of behavior is conducted by people who claim to be fans of one of the classiest guys in sports, maybe they could take a page from Roger and show some dignity and respect.

I don't have a problem with any of the extremist fed fans having their right to voice their opinion even if it is silly and negative. If anyone tries to censor them although I disagree with them I would stand up for their right to say it. But on the other hand other people have a right to basically say what they like, and other people also have a right to get peed off by it. Free speech is a double edged sword. It is a shame because from the beginning I liked Roger even when he had problems with Novak, but at this point I find myself rooting against him in every match. The extremist nature of some of his fans has basically destroyed my ability to wish for his success.

I am a fed fan but I want djoko to win today so he can again own Nadal in another slam final. Specially if Djoko wins the first final Nadal will lose half of the battle against Andy too.

P.S. I do not disrespect Djoko as well and neither the other fedfans. BB has been saying it about retirements Djoko has taken in the past and Fognini factor was a joke and nothing else. Fed fans do not mind Djoko winning as it exposes Rafa's limited game.

wow wrote:I am a fed fan but I want djoko to win today so he can again own Nadal in another slam final. Specially if Djoko wins the first final Nadal will lose half of the battle against Andy too.

P.S. I do not disrespect Djoko as well and neither the other fedfans. BB has been saying it about retirements Djoko has taken in the past and Fognini factor was a joke and nothing else. Fed fans do not mind Djoko winning as it exposes Rafa's limited game.

But you have to go and spoil it with your last sentence.

Is that the limited game that 95% + of the ATP players would die for

Not really. Majority of courts have been now slowed down. All players barring few indulge in baseline bashing of the ball.
Where has the variety gone?

wow wrote:I am a fed fan but I want djoko to win today so he can again own Nadal in another slam final. Specially if Djoko wins the first final Nadal will lose half of the battle against Andy too.

P.S. I do not disrespect Djoko as well and neither the other fedfans. BB has been saying it about retirements Djoko has taken in the past and Fognini factor was a joke and nothing else. Fed fans do not mind Djoko winning as it exposes Rafa's limited game.

So essentially your dislike of Nadal overrides your admiration for Federer. I find this stance odd. I hope we get a couple of good semi-finals and a cracking final, no more no less. Sure, I'd prefer to see Nadal win but I can find reasons to be happy for each of the semi-finalists if they were to triumph.

wow wrote:Not really. Majority of courts have been now slowed down. All players barring few indulge in baseline bashing of the ball.
Where has the variety gone?

The players on tour have to win with the conditions given not what they wish them to be. Bjorg played a similar style to Nadal and was able to succeed in a faster court era, wilander had no ability to finish points but his battling and counterpunching allowed him to win in an era repeat with talent and with faster conditions. So your premise that Nadal is only successful because of slower conditions is really not supported by the facts. Great players like Nadal would be successful in any era. A little extra sand in the court and an 8 percent bigger ball doesn't explain 10 slams.

socal1976 wrote:

wow wrote:Not really. Majority of courts have been now slowed down. All players barring few indulge in baseline bashing of the ball.
Where has the variety gone?

The players on tour have to win with the conditions given not what they wish them to be. Bjorg played a similar style to Nadal and was able to succeed in a faster court era, wilander had no ability to finish points but his battling and counterpunching allowed him to win in an era repeat with talent and with faster conditions. So your premise that Nadal is only successful because of slower conditions is really not supported by the facts. Great players like Nadal would be successful in any era. A little extra sand in the court and an 8 percent bigger ball doesn't explain 10 slams.

Wrong, wrong...and wrong.

You are still posting little sense as usual, with authority certainly but try to be objective.

1 - Players have to win with the conditions they developed their tennis on. There is no point asking a 100m racer to suddenly be good at marathon and vice versa. A 100m race hasn;t got its length changed, so why would tennis courts keep changing pace? Especially in the direction that makes real tennis skills irrelevant.
2 - Bjorn did not play in fast conditions. Fast conditions were created by the bigger racquet frames which allowed a percentage tennis (whacking the ball and hope) as opposed to the crafty play needed with small wooden racquets. Grass and clay were different but certainly not as much as in the 80s and 90s where the racquet size change made the whole difference.
3 - Wilander never passed the 1/4F at Wimbledon cause his game was badly suited there. Same applied for all kings of clay of the 80s and 90s. They were nowhere to be seen in the later stages of wimbledons...I am talking of course of the moonballers and not the flat baseline hitters like Lendl, Agassi, Courrier.

Do understand that the bashing of Nadal is related to the fact that he was allowed to turn a 100m race into a marathon. Lots of us enjoy watching the 100m race not the longer one!

Going back to 606 days, I have always maintained that we are lucky to have current top 4s in front of us. Some of us get to watch them live, some on sky, some on terrestrials and some on free streams. At the present age of 51, I recall how avidly I used to wait for that annual Wimbledon final transmission, that was the ONLY tennis we got to watch in India on TV, way back in 70s and 80s. I consider myself lucky that now tennis is relatively widely available for viewers like me, who really can't get to live tournaments for various reasons. I could never hate a player more than the teenager in me did the brat McEnroe, who BTW I LOVE now. Perhaps I am not fan enough to hate a player anymore. I just love Roger and can only hope for him to keep on winning. I know there are going to be many many disappointments for me until he hangs his racquet, but so be it. I wish all 4 all the best, including Andy M, who I should really support foremost, being a Brit. I should be grateful if I am left alone in my nostalgia. I am too weak to be derided or laughed at.

I will be sad when ROger will retire. Only other player who I liked as much as him was Becker.

Manojchandra wrote:Going back to 606 days, I have always maintained that we are lucky to have current top 4s in front of us.

Even that could be argued. Anyone watching the old matches of Federer v Nalbandian or v Gasquet (MC 2006) can see how great, fast and exciting the matches were. Had we provided conds where the more talented players could have thrived, we may be even more blessed than today. Sure the Nadal v Fed matches can be exciting but essentially cause it create Fed with his biggest challenge but as soon as his energy level drops, it becomes a simple routine of physical attrition.

What do you prefer to watch? a 3 setter between Federer v Monaco or a 3 setter Nadal v Berdych?

Yesterday there was a very interesting stat: Murray joined the group of 7 players in the open era reaching the semis of the 4 slams in a calendar year.

4 of them are actually the current top 4!!! why? Not because it is a strong era as some might think but simply because they rely on their physique (certainly for 3 of them) more than their talent to advance deep in tournaments. Talent is much more fragile and uncontrollable skills. Those guys can rely on their superior fitness to reach the later stages of a slam. When you rely on your talent, you are much more dependant on the form of the day...unless you have tons like Fed.

It's no surprise that Lendl belongs to that list too as he was one that pushed that physical bar a few notches up.

Tenez wrote:

It's no surprise that Lendl belongs to that list too as he was one that pushed that physical bar a few notches up.

Just an admin doing his rounds, I became intrigued by this point , above.

Now, tennis isn't my game and, besides, I was raised during the innocent days of Laver and Newcombe, but I nonetheless wondered :

If Lendl could raise the physical bar during his era, and Nadal can do the same today, which impediment stands in the way of Mr Federer, thus preventing his doing the same ?

Only curious, you understand, and asking a genuine question.

What was the question?

wow wrote:What was the question?

I do apologize, wow.

I seem to have written it in English. Silly me.

Apologies accepted.

wow wrote:Apologies accepted because usually questions end with ? in English language if I am not wrong.

No, you wouldn't be wrong, though your eyesight is questionable. My question was appended with a question mark.

I shall be pleased to receive YOUR apology.

Oversight:) But I am still struggling to understand your question. Something to do with my rudimentary intellect.

My apologies to you Mr adminstrator, your highness, MBE. Please accept my apologies.

Anyway, setting aside the hostile reception and the games of semantics, would anybody be willing to address what was a genuine question ?

Thank you.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Tenez wrote:

It's no surprise that Lendl belongs to that list too as he was one that pushed that physical bar a few notches up.

Just an admin doing his rounds, I became intrigued by this point , above.

Now, tennis isn't my game and, besides, I was raised during the innocent days of Laver and Newcombe, but I nonetheless wondered :

If Lendl could raise the physical bar during his era, and Nadal can do the same today, which impediment stands in the way of Mr Federer, thus preventing his doing the same ?

Only curious, you understand, and asking a genuine question.

To answer the question Windy, Federer has been a 'fit' player. It would not in anyway suit his game to become fitter and quicker. He is a very smooth mover as his court coverage on the baseline side to side tends to be a side step than bursting a gut like many other players like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for example. Federer's movement has always been something to admire as he does not burn the amount of energy that the other players need to. His shotmaking abilities limit the need for him to 'rush' around the court. Nadal has the balance of running the legs off anyone and be able to produce some stunning shots.

As Tenez has pointed out before the DHBH seems to be a more effective shot in today's game compared to the SHBH which Federer uses. Makes Federer's achievements in the game truly remarkable and impossible to latter generations to replicate.

wow wrote:My apologies to you Mr adminstrator, your highness, MBE. Please accept my apologies.

Well, I had the good grace to ask for an apology, which I was due.

You had the bully boy mentality to demand one, which you were not due. In addition, you evidently lack the guts to admit that you are wrong.

Forget the question. I can enjoy more intelligent, and more polite, conversation with my grandchildren.

Because physical game is boring and makes it mundane. Tennis needs skills and not the physicality.

I hope that satisfies your inquest for a right answer.

Good for you.

legendkillar wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Tenez wrote:

It's no surprise that Lendl belongs to that list too as he was one that pushed that physical bar a few notches up.

Just an admin doing his rounds, I became intrigued by this point , above.

Now, tennis isn't my game and, besides, I was raised during the innocent days of Laver and Newcombe, but I nonetheless wondered :

If Lendl could raise the physical bar during his era, and Nadal can do the same today, which impediment stands in the way of Mr Federer, thus preventing his doing the same ?

Only curious, you understand, and asking a genuine question.

To answer the question Windy, Federer has been a 'fit' player. It would not in anyway suit his game to become fitter and quicker. He is a very smooth mover as his court coverage on the baseline side to side tends to be a side step than bursting a gut like many other players like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for example. Federer's movement has always been something to admire as he does not burn the amount of energy that the other players need to. His shotmaking abilities limit the need for him to 'rush' around the court. Nadal has the balance of running the legs off anyone and be able to produce some stunning shots.

As Tenez has pointed out before the DHBH seems to be a more effective shot in today's game compared to the SHBH which Federer uses. Makes Federer's achievements in the game truly remarkable and impossible to latter generations to replicate.

Thanks very much, LK.

It was a genuine question ( from a tennis duffer, ) and your explanation is easy to understand.

I appreciate your having taken the trouble, mate.