The Final Thread-Time for a good ol Rogering? Novaks Roger... Im OK (its mine!)

by temporary21 Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

lets get ready to rumblllllleeeeee!!!!

dododododododo
dododoDODODODO!....

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:44 am

Petchey suggetsing that Sabre maybe clouded Feds judgement on bp's one the second delivery...

maybe... he was a bit passive where it counted. Novak wasnt though.

by CAS Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:48 am

Novak getting a proper tally now, last year I was thinking after his French open loss in 2014 that 6 slams was pretty low for a guy who was dominating in all the other tournaments most of the time. It's put it right now

by kemet Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:48 am

Congrats to Novak on his 10th slam. He was the better player throughout the match, and even if Roger had gotten back into the 4th set, I still think Novak would have won the match in the end.

by mthierry Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:49 am

If only as an eff you to the silly, obnoxious crowd, I'm delighted for Djokovic. Hell of a competitor.

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:50 am

Hes 28. He can probably go 4 more years at least... thats an optimistic outlook yo know...

by Henman Bill Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:50 am

Well done Novak, solid enough throughout, strong enough when it matters. Does well on the big points.

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:51 am

Novak looks pretty bemused, dont think hes very happy with the crowd... I wouldnt be either

by kemet Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:54 am

temporary21 wrote:Novak looks pretty bemused, dont think hes very happy with the crowd... I wouldnt be either

This crowd is not the strawberries and pastries type; more like the cheap liquor and peanuts type.

Very boorish....

by CAS Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:56 am

It looks great now that he could go on and win many more but it can change very quickly. When Fed won the Aussie open in '10 I don't think anyone thought he wold go 2 and a half years before winning again.

When McEnroe won the US Open in 84 I don't think anyone would have thought he would never win a slam again.

Rafa in 13 looked like he would stampede past Federers record too

by TRuffin Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:57 am

Fed had his chances, and fought like hell. Champion pride.
Novak too good right now

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:00 am

Well to stop his charge, he probably needs to get either injured (could happen) or Rafa has to come back, maybe, or Murray needs to come back, maybe again.

Roger, probably, cant hold him off on his own

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:01 am

The match was summarised by 3-4 in the third set.

Fed had bp's 4, I think in both return games, most on the second serve, didnt take any

Novak forces one at 4-4, and takes it, with everything going against him, including the crowd doing EVERYTHING to put him off his serve.

Its not pretty but that kind of steel is absolutely impressive as anything.

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:03 am

To Roger
Thats what, his third last chance at one of these things? Am I to be convinced he wont get another last chance, ala Christian?

by CAS Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:13 am

That match was a lot closer than Wimbledon even though the scoreline was very similar, I'm getting a bit frustrated by some of the commentators comments mainly Greg. 'Fed played as else as he can play, the match of his life' I mean seriously?

Maybe he played as well as he could on the night but match of his life?

by TRuffin Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:14 am

temporary21 wrote:To Roger
Thats what, his third last chance at one of these things? Am I to be convinced he wont get another last chance, ala Christian?

It gets harder each year Wink

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:29 am

Anyway night , well morning guys. You see that idiot again, ignore him and tell an admin

by socal1976 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:40 am

I have to say, Federer was marvelous all match long except at break point. I mean if he played a little better on break point he could have had this match. That being said Novak really did come up with some incredible serves and clutch play on BP.

The crowd as always was atrocious. This is tennis not UFC you don't cheer faults. You don't yell out in middle of point or in the middle of serve tosses. As a Los Angelino this is why we hate new Yorkers. They really are Aholes that are too happy with themselves. Paris and NY are the worst fans in tennis. Kudos to Melbourne and Wimby fans for being not one but several notches better than these pathetic individuals who think the price of an admission ticket gives them the right to yell out during a players serve.

by socal1976 Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:43 am

As for Novak he won this match on great clutch play on BP. He made it a lot tougher than it ought to have been. Either way ten slams is a wonderful number. Spectacular actually, wonderful how he responded tonight to all the crowd's antics and Roger's incredible shots. What is encouraging as Djoko fan is that he had a mediocre serving night yet was able to win against the world #2 despite that. His returning was freaking huge tonight. If I had to have someone make a break late in a set to save my life there is no question I am taking Djokovic and hell if he is honest even Jahu would say the same.

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:46 am

Why CAS?

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:53 am

Congrats to Novak for the win. Hes clutch enough to hold off Fed where it mattered. He lives up to the no.1 ranking, well done.

by Guest Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:34 am

Woke up to see Novak takes a 2nd US Open and 10th Slam. I know many are not a fan of the Djokovic dominance, but he sure knows how to get the job done.

As for Federer, the defeats get harder. I do want to see the old gunslinger have his day at noon, but sadly those dreams are fairy tales and there is no such thing Sad

HB 10 years ago I was cheering Agassi. Like I would Federer. And like then when the first set was lost, the writing was on the wall from that point onwards.

Congratulations to Djokovic. The legacy is continuing to grow. Not long now till a top 5 spot in the GOAT rankings beckons.

by CAS Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:51 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Why CAS?

Why what?

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:15 am

Why better to lose to Novak than to Rafa?

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:21 am

Or why it hurts less losing to Novak than to Rafa?

by Guest Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:43 am

Federer had his chances in a highly competitive final but Djokovic just too resilient in the end. Both Federer and Djokovic were miles ahead of the rest in this tournament but Djokovic just that bit better. Both have iron wills despite both being nervous. Federer stretched him but unable to break him. As long as Federer is able to remain at number two in the world there should be more chances for him and he will keep on breaking new grounds in the modern game for his age.

Ps the female umpire made all the right decisions and had hawkeye eyes - she turned out to be a bit of a star herself - I suppose that's why they selected her for the mens final - Eva Asderaki.

by CAS Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:50 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Why better to lose to Novak than to Rafa?

I think because Novak is still a bit behind Roger in the slam count, when Rafa beat him it felt more significant. My expectations were much higher when Federer played Rafa in slam finals but against Novak I'm hopeful but a lot more realistic.

by HM Murdock Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:00 am

Not much between the two players but, as is glaringly obvious, Federer's BP conversion was costly. Novak should get some credit for that but I think Federer will correctly blame himself for many of them too.

End of third was the big turning point. I really don't know what happened there. Federer was all over Novak, all the momentum was with him and then he loses serve out of nowhere.

I started the evening relatively neutral. Novak is my player but a Federer win would have been a stunning achievement, so I would have been quite happy with either result. That awful crowd pushed me back to Novak though. I wanted him to win just so those morons would go home disappointed.

For Novak, 10 slams is a fabulous achievement. Double digit slam count puts him in some seriously elite company.

I must admit though, that I found this the least exciting of Novak's slam wins.

A comfortable draw that required him to be no better than average was navigated without being better than average. The final was tense but it was winning fairly ugly. Great resilience and deserving of respect but not a great spectacle in its own right.

But I won't let that detract from the achievement. 10 slams is at the outer reaches (in fact, probably now beyond) what I thought he was likely to achieve. And if he can win a slam without playing his best, then he is a heck of player.

I now need to decide if he is the senior member of the Connors/Lendl/Agassi group or the junior member of the Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg group! I've always said that double digit slams in the criteria for 'tier 1' greatness, so I probably lean toward the latter.

by slashermcguirk Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:10 am

Delighted for Novak, particularly given the pathetic crowd he was up against. Takes serious guts to come through against federer and a full Arthur Ashe cheering him on. Novak is really getting up among the all time greats now. Peter Fleming was spot on in the commentary that people don't seem to appreciate or realise what an amazing player that djokovic is! He may be right that it's only as Novak finishes his career against up and coming players that people will realise it and most likely get further behind him.

9 of his slam final wins against federer, nadal and Murray. That is seriously impressive.

To the fed fans, roger is certainly playing some inspired tennis and I do believe he might still add to his slam tally. He is certainly the 2nd best player out there at the moment. If he keeps year seeding, no guarantee he will have to come through Novak in future slams. You have to think he needs to avoid Novak over 5 sets

by Guest Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:31 am

Yep Novak was up against a very hostile crowd plus he cut himself and was bleeding all over the place early in the first set. His celebrations were quite muted and reserved for his family, friends and coaches. In terms of results this was his best year - he was one win away from the calendar slam - having beaten Nadal convincingly at the French Open for the first time. It was only a somewhat aging resurgent Wawrinka that prevented that.

The ball is in Djokovics court - if he can maintain his motivation and fitness - then there is no reason why he can't attempt the grand slam over the next two years. He doesn't have many challengers - there really is a huge gap between him and the rest of the pack at the moment:

1) Djokovic ......... 16,145
2) Federer ........... 9,405
3) Murray ............ 8,660
4) Wawrinka ......... 6,000
5) Berdych ........... 5,050
6) Nishikori ........... 5,015
7) Nadal ............... 3,770
8) Ferrer .............. 3,695

by paulcz Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:35 am

socal1976 wrote:I have to say, Federer was marvelous all match long except at break point. I mean if he played a little better on break point he could have had this match. That being said Novak really did come up with some incredible serves and clutch play on BP.

The crowd as always was atrocious. This is tennis not UFC you don't cheer faults. You don't yell out in middle of point or in the middle of serve tosses. As a Los Angelino this is why we hate new Yorkers. They really are Aholes that are too happy with themselves. Paris and NY are the worst fans in tennis. Kudos to Melbourne and Wimby fans for being not one but several notches better than these pathetic individuals who think the price of an admission ticket gives them the right to yell out during a players serve.

Absolutely Socal. I have not seen so many idiots in the crowds except some Davic cup matches, but these ones are something different.
Despite all these unfair cheering assholes, Novak showed what a good metal is made from. I dont think somebody else could win this match in such a hostile atmosphere. The greatest credit to Novak how he kept his nerves through the whole match clap

by Born Slippy Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:49 am

Fed now looks to have a shot at holding on to number 2 for Oz (which looked highly unlikely after Canada). Murray's race lead is down to 600 points. I haven't worked out how DC points factor in but I'm guessing two wins next weekend will extend that.

With Murray playing a limited autumn schedule, I would say its now about 55:45 in Murray's favour for YE2.

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:51 am

Ok thanks CAS for your explanation.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:11 pm

Well done Novak. He proved again why he is the best mens player on the planet at the moment. Ten slam wins and counting and it his current rate he is far from done yet. He also came close to the Grand Slam this year as well.

As for Roger he is the best of the rest at present. Does he have another slam win in him? He certainly does if he can avoid Novak.

by socal1976 Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:52 pm

paulcz wrote:
socal1976 wrote:I have to say, Federer was marvelous all match long except at break point. I mean if he played a little better on break point he could have had this match. That being said Novak really did come up with some incredible serves and clutch play on BP.

The crowd as always was atrocious. This is tennis not UFC you don't cheer faults. You don't yell out in middle of point or in the middle of serve tosses. As a Los Angelino this is why we hate new Yorkers. They really are Aholes that are too happy with themselves. Paris and NY are the worst fans in tennis. Kudos to Melbourne and Wimby fans for being not one but several notches better than these pathetic individuals who think the price of an admission ticket gives them the right to yell out during a players serve.

Absolutely Socal. I have not seen so many idiots in the crowds except some Davic cup matches, but these ones are something different.
Despite all these unfair cheering assholes, Novak showed what a good metal is made from. I dont think somebody else could win this match in such a hostile atmosphere. The greatest credit to Novak how he kept his nerves through the whole match

Paul it was really worse than some Davis Cup matches. I mean I have seen players live that I want to win and others I don't like but I would never yell out while the guy is tossing or cheer a first serve fault. It was funny towards the end of the match he just ignored it even while some drunk was yelling out. He got used to it and refused to let them see that it was angering him. The umpire must have begged them to be quiet between points like 20 times or more she kept saying "please, please" right before the serve. Just watch the contest, tear your hair out in joy or rage for your favorite player between the points but don't try to interject yourself into the event. People make fun of tennis for players wanting absolute quiet before they serve. The point is that to hit the serve you want you have to catch the ball with precisely the right swing and wrist angle on a target that is few mils. A couple of mills. over and you hit long or in the net. If you want to see any tennis player go crazy just go to the local club stand by his court and yell out right as he tosses the ball. If he is big he might hit you. Djokovic had to put up with thousands of yahoos like that for three and half hours.

by Henman Bill Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:47 pm

HM Murdock wrote:

I now need to decide if he is the senior member of the Connors/Lendl/Agassi group or the junior member of the Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg group! I've always said that double digit slams in the criteria for 'tier 1' greatness, so I probably lean toward the latter.

I think it's the senior member of the lower group. Connors had some big achievements in his career including total titles won, and one of the best years ever (better than Djok 11 or 15). He was also year end number 1 for 5 years.

And Connors 8 slams needs to be put in the context that Djokovic played in a 4-slam era. Connors never played 4 slams a year. To be clear, never once in a calendar year did he play all 4! He mostly missed AO and in his 2 AO years missed the FO. Djokovic would be on 5 slams without his AOs. Connors, on the other hand, missed 13 slams between his first and last win (compared to zero for Djokovic). Playing in a 4-slam era it's reasonable to assume Connors might have won about 12 slams.

Agassi also missed 7 slams between his first and last win, admittedly he skipped some when he didn't feel like it, but in today's era, would he have done that given no-one else does it? I think in today's 4 slam era, Agassi, who skipped a bunch of AOs in the first half of his career as well as Wimbledon now and then, could have 10 slams. He also has the career grand slam.

So I think it's reasonable to even question whether Djokovic is the senior member of the group let alone whether he is in the other group.

To get in that other group you mention I think he needs to get either the French Open or up to about 14 slams.

by temporary21 Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:09 pm

Here's one for you all. He gets the French he's better than burg and maybe even Pete

by Guest Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:11 pm

Henman Bill wrote:
HM Murdock wrote:

I now need to decide if he is the senior member of the Connors/Lendl/Agassi group or the junior member of the Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg group! I've always said that double digit slams in the criteria for 'tier 1' greatness, so I probably lean toward the latter.

I think it's the senior member of the lower group. Connors had some big achievements in his career including total titles won, and one of the best years ever (better than Djok 11 or 15). He was also year end number 1 for 5 years.

And Connors 8 slams needs to be put in the context that Djokovic played in a 4-slam era. Connors never played 4 slams a year. To be clear, never once in a calendar year did he play all 4! He mostly missed AO and in his 2 AO years missed the FO. Djokovic would be on 5 slams without his AOs. Connors, on the other hand, missed 13 slams between his first and last win (compared to zero for Djokovic). Playing in a 4-slam era it's reasonable to assume Connors might have won about 12 slams.

Agassi also missed 7 slams between his first and last win, admittedly he skipped some when he didn't feel like it, but in today's era, would he have done that given no-one else does it? I think in today's 4 slam era, Agassi, who skipped a bunch of AOs in the first half of his career as well as Wimbledon now and then, could have 10 slams. He also has the career grand slam.

So I think it's reasonable to even question whether Djokovic is the senior member of the group let alone whether he is in the other group.

To get in that other group you mention I think he needs to get either the French Open or up to about 14 slams.

I don't agree.

I think he is a junior member of the top tier. Simply bar one of his Slams he has had to beat either Federer, Nadal or Murray. Take takes some doing. Plus weeks at number one. He is 6 short of McEnroe who is at 5.

He might not be my cup of tea or many others, but his achievements are quite brilliant and he isn't done either.

by socal1976 Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:31 pm

Well the whole thing is that he is still in his prime right now. The scary thing is I think he still has another gear in him that he can lift his level. He won this slam without playing really convincing for the last couple of months. So again we have to wait and see because he is the only one of those tier of players who is still at or near his peak and judging by his dominance should add more majors to the haul. No one can say for sure how many by own guess would be that he adds between 3-5 more slams.

by HM Murdock Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:01 pm

HB - good comments about Connors.

He's the one of that group that I'm hesitant about elevating Djoko above.

I'd definitely rate Agassi below Djoko in terms of achievement.

Lendl's non-slam achievements are stellar but I think "only" 8 slams is a mark against him. I think Djoko has his nose a fraction in front of him now.

Connors' career numbers are incredible and the comparatively small number of slams can be easily explained (as indeed you have!).

The weakness in Connors case is that it requires us to assume that he would have won more slams had he entered them. We are required to give the benefit of the doubt.

I think a case can be made for rating Novak ahead of him but it's not clear cut at all.

We'll have to see what Novak does over the next couple of years.

by Henman Bill Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:24 am

Some of this post may be controversial...

Yeah Novak is above Lendl, agree there. Connors and Agassi more on a par.

It's a good point about who Novak has had to beat (Nadal and Federer) but those kind of debates can be tricky. It's not like Connors was facing easy opponents. Maybe a little bit in his earlier career (I think Ken Rosewall actually came out with a walking stick and glasses in one of the Wimbledon finals) but then Borg, Mcenroe, Lendl. Really almost as tough an era as today. vs Agassi it's a particularly good point because Agassi beat all sorts of only "good" not great players to win a lot of his slams. Easier than Djokovic.

However you could equally argue that Agassi's ability to win at all four slams something no one else even came close to in the 90s when surfaces were more specialist is something extra impressive, most great players only had between 1 and 3 slams a year that they were realistically playing to win. If Novak had played in the 90s or earlier, he might have struggled on serve volley grass and faster hard courts..we can only speculate..surfaces being more homogenized today make it easier for whoever is the world no 1 to bank 2-3 slams a year.

In the 1990s a lot of FO champions did not even bother to enter to Wimbledon, they would have struggled to reach a quarter final. Likewise Becker/Edberg/Sampras and others really did not get as much of a look in at the FO as Djokovic, and when they did play there came up against clay court specialists like Berasetageui (oopsie on the spelling) and Moya and Kuerten and Muster and others. Those clay court specialists barely exist now.

If you agree with this line of argument then Agassi's achievement of all four (career slam) is the best in the modern era, followed by Federer (who was able to win both Wimbledon and the US Open at faster speeds than today but not as fast as Agassi) followed by Nadal and Djokovic bringing up the rear. (Of course, in Djokovic case he hasn't actually done such an achievement yet, but I think he will make it.) I might then argue that in this more homogeneous age you really need to achieve bigger number of slams overall to compensate for this advantage.

I'm only arguing against Novak based on what he's achieved so far, assuming where he would stand if he fails to win another slam or retires tomorrow. However the chances are he will be moving solidly into the top bracket by the time he retires.

As a general point, I think it's often unfair when people commonly say words to the effect of "[modern player] is better than [years ago player] now that they have slightly more slams." There were many reasons why players years ago won less slams - surface variety, other events taking importance as well as slams (Davis Cup, world team tennis), Australian Open not as prestigous so people didn't bother to attend, people boycotting or being barred from playing events.

And that's before you even get into the pre Open era where it's even more murky.

Have a look at my comments around page 7 of the GOAT sticky if this isn't boring you.

by summerblues Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:26 am

temporary21 wrote:Here's one for you all. He gets the French he's better than burg and maybe even Pete

Certainly not for me, at least not Pete. I think Pete is unfairly judged by his lack of RG wins. The difficulty of winning both RG and Wimbledon then was very different (and much higher) than what it is now.

I am actually leaning in the opposite direction. I wonder if the relative uniformity of playing conditions may have made it easier for Fed, Rafa and now Nole to collect as many slams as they have.

But I admit it is not clear cut to me. On one hand, they can more easily contest every slam whereas in Pete's days one needed to specialize their game for certain slams more than others, so this gives current players bigger pool of slams they can realistically hope to win. The flip side is that everyone is able to compete everywhere, whereas in Pete's days you effectively only competed against a subset of players in each tournament, so perhaps each individual tournament is harder to win now.

by summerblues Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:34 am

HM Murdock wrote:The weakness in Connors case is that it requires us to assume that he would have won more slams had he entered them. We are required to give the benefit of the doubt.

I do not quite see it as giving benefit of the doubt. Back then, there were effectively three slams. AO just did not count (even if Connors had entered AO and won it I do not think it would really figure in his "greatness" estimates as the AO just did not have a slam quality field back then).

So the question is how do you compare a guy with 8 slams from an era with 3 slams per year with a guy with 10 slams from an era with 4 slams per year. Maybe you take 8 x (4/3) or maybe you do something else, but I do not think it is fair to Connors to just do a straight-up comparison of slam counts.

PS. But that only applies to AO. The other slams that he missed he simply did not win - same to me as if he entered and lost.

by summerblues Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:38 am

Nore Staat wrote:Ps the female umpire made all the right decisions and had hawkeye eyes - she turned out to be a bit of a star herself - I suppose that's why they selected her for the mens final - Eva Asderaki.

She was pretty impressive. She made a couple of line calls to interrupt the play when linespeople failed to call out and it would have been very easy for her to just let the play continue and not take the risk of looking silly. And she was right every time.

by Guest Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:55 am

Well I thought that the metric system for a gold ole GOAT debate was that if you couldn't separate players by the Slam count, then weeks at no.1 became the yardstick. Which at this point Novak is closing in on the 5 spot in the ATL. Every chance he could hit the 200 week mark.

by HM Murdock Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:39 am

Good comments above.

I think this shows how subjective comparing players of different eras is. The reasoning used by HB and SB above strikes me as very fair and logical... but I still disagree with some of the conclusions!

I'm also realising how arbitrary my "double digit slam = tier 1 greatness" is.

It probably stems from rating Borg above Connors. Borg has double digit slams and Connors doesn't, so that seemed a good yardstick.

But now we have Novak with 10 slams, which is statistically nearer Borg but he still feels to me like he's nearer Connors in historical standing.

And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the gap between Connors and Borg isn't actually all that large!

The thought also occurs to me that had Novak beaten Rafa in one of their recent meetings at RG, their respective slam tallies would be 11 and 13, both with the career slam. They'd group together very comfortably in historical terms.

And yet at 10 v 14, Rafa will nearly always be rated higher. Are we saying that the difference between levels of greatness in 10+ year careers can ride on the result of one match?

It's a minefield!

by paulcz Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:46 am

socal1976 wrote:
paulcz wrote:
socal1976 wrote:I have to say, Federer was marvelous all match long except at break point. I mean if he played a little better on break point he could have had this match. That being said Novak really did come up with some incredible serves and clutch play on BP.

The crowd as always was atrocious. This is tennis not UFC you don't cheer faults. You don't yell out in middle of point or in the middle of serve tosses. As a Los Angelino this is why we hate new Yorkers. They really are Aholes that are too happy with themselves. Paris and NY are the worst fans in tennis. Kudos to Melbourne and Wimby fans for being not one but several notches better than these pathetic individuals who think the price of an admission ticket gives them the right to yell out during a players serve.

Absolutely Socal. I have not seen so many idiots in the crowds except some Davic cup matches, but these ones are something different.
Despite all these unfair cheering assholes, Novak showed what a good metal is made from. I dont think somebody else could win this match in such a hostile atmosphere. The greatest credit to Novak how he kept his nerves through the whole match

Paul it was really worse than some Davis Cup matches. I mean I have seen players live that I want to win and others I don't like but I would never yell out while the guy is tossing or cheer a first serve fault. It was funny towards the end of the match he just ignored it even while some drunk was yelling out. He got used to it and refused to let them see that it was angering him. The umpire must have begged them to be quiet between points like 20 times or more she kept saying "please, please" right before the serve. Just watch the contest, tear your hair out in joy or rage for your favorite player between the points but don't try to interject yourself into the event. People make fun of tennis for players wanting absolute quiet before they serve. The point is that to hit the serve you want you have to catch the ball with precisely the right swing and wrist angle on a target that is few mils. A couple of mills. over and you hit long or in the net. If you want to see any tennis player go crazy just go to the local club stand by his court and yell out right as he tosses the ball. If he is big he might hit you. Djokovic had to put up with thousands of yahoos like that for three and half hours.

I played a lot tennis matches on a local level and saw many matches from Czech tennis league, so I am aware how these jackasses can affect a player especially on serve, in particular on small courts. Tbh I see a lot of Fed’s fans as blind nowadays, when they can’t get how amazing performance Novak showed at Wimbledon and USO recently. To play against such a great server on the fastest GS surfaces in front of utterly hostile crowds, is something incredible. I still can’t believe what Novak has done. In my view he managed something, what is like a small miracle. Nearly like a revealing of Saint Mary in Lourdes or something of that kind angel

by Belovedluckyboy Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:05 am

^Whoah!

To me, its never in doubt that Novak would win this final. He can simply serve and return well like he did at Wimbledon, and was so quick around the court. Both Novak and Rafa (not the current one) could just do that all day and so at the end of the day its simply too much for Fed to handle. I also think that mentally its a strain when playing against Novak or Rafa and thats why Fed tend to make more errors, failed to take his chances.

I think against anyone else other than those two, Fed would most likely win.

by paulcz Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:27 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:^Whoah!

To me, its never in doubt that Novak would win this final. He can simply serve and return well like he did at Wimbledon, and was so quick around the court. Both Novak and Rafa (not the current one) could just do that all day and so at the end of the day its simply too much for Fed to handle. I also think that mentally its a strain when playing against Novak or Rafa and thats why Fed tend to make more errors, failed to take his chances.

I think against anyone else other than those two, Fed would most likely win.

BLB, lucky you for having such a conviction. I think you got a fortune on bets then.
Novak suffered a heavy setback in RG final and had no easy way at Wimbledon. His match with KA could go either way. Most of experts and former players favoured Fed in the final and it is no secret that ND is not comfortable with his move on the grass. So if you saw it as clear one, then a hat off to this.

The winner USO could be either of them, Nole or Fed. There was a tiny difference between them and the amount of BPs says it all. Had Fed been more mentally resilient, he would win it. I saw that Novak had not played his best tennis and won it by his sheer will.

Have you played a match when were most of people yelling out against you and it does not have to be a tennis match, whichever!

When things have been done, everybody is the king, isnt it.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:59 pm

Well, perhaps you could take a read of the USO Day 5 thread and read what I wrote there about Fed (and Novak). Its not a thought after things have been done. I mentioned there that Fed is not going to beat Novak at the slams.

As Ive mentioned above, Novak is simply too fit too quick and also too good for a 34 yo Fed. Had it been a Fed at his peak there may be a different outcome. Novak wasnt playing all that well in the final, so the match was close, still hes the top dog now so he found a way to win.

by socal1976 Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:44 pm

paulcz wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
paulcz wrote:
socal1976 wrote:I have to say, Federer was marvelous all match long except at break point. I mean if he played a little better on break point he could have had this match. That being said Novak really did come up with some incredible serves and clutch play on BP.

The crowd as always was atrocious. This is tennis not UFC you don't cheer faults. You don't yell out in middle of point or in the middle of serve tosses. As a Los Angelino this is why we hate new Yorkers. They really are Aholes that are too happy with themselves. Paris and NY are the worst fans in tennis. Kudos to Melbourne and Wimby fans for being not one but several notches better than these pathetic individuals who think the price of an admission ticket gives them the right to yell out during a players serve.

Absolutely Socal. I have not seen so many idiots in the crowds except some Davic cup matches, but these ones are something different.
Despite all these unfair cheering assholes, Novak showed what a good metal is made from. I dont think somebody else could win this match in such a hostile atmosphere. The greatest credit to Novak how he kept his nerves through the whole match

Paul it was really worse than some Davis Cup matches. I mean I have seen players live that I want to win and others I don't like but I would never yell out while the guy is tossing or cheer a first serve fault. It was funny towards the end of the match he just ignored it even while some drunk was yelling out. He got used to it and refused to let them see that it was angering him. The umpire must have begged them to be quiet between points like 20 times or more she kept saying "please, please" right before the serve. Just watch the contest, tear your hair out in joy or rage for your favorite player between the points but don't try to interject yourself into the event. People make fun of tennis for players wanting absolute quiet before they serve. The point is that to hit the serve you want you have to catch the ball with precisely the right swing and wrist angle on a target that is few mils. A couple of mills. over and you hit long or in the net. If you want to see any tennis player go crazy just go to the local club stand by his court and yell out right as he tosses the ball. If he is big he might hit you. Djokovic had to put up with thousands of yahoos like that for three and half hours.

I played a lot tennis matches on a local level and saw many matches from Czech tennis league, so I am aware how these jackasses can affect a player especially on serve, in particular on small courts. Tbh I see a lot of Fed’s fans as blind nowadays, when they can’t get how amazing performance Novak showed at Wimbledon and USO recently. To play against such a great server on the fastest GS surfaces in front of utterly hostile crowds, is something incredible. I still can’t believe what Novak has done. In my view he managed something, what is like a small miracle. Nearly like a revealing of Saint Mary in Lourdes or something of that kind

Yes it makes it even more amazing in that against Fed or Nadal who he plays in most finals he is always being cheered against. I mean a lot of his slam victories are the equivalent of playing the best player other than you in the world in a Davis Cup road match. That is truly impressive when you think about it. I will say that he gets a much fairer shake at Melbourne and at Wimbeldon where the fans are for the other guy but are pretty good at respecting the other player and more importantly the event as a whole.

by Sponsored content