Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

2021 In Between Grand Slam Thread



  • Yes, I'm very well aware of his background and how much adversity he, and the many other Serbian players, faced growing up. It is a credit to him and all the others who made to it to the level he has. However, anyone who runs their own rogue super-spreader event in a global pandemic (and later admits they wouldn't do anything differently), is prepared to miss a potential place in history to avoid getting vaccinated and engages with quack doctors and preaches pseudoscience (particularly in the age of dangerous disinformation) is a moron. And don't get me started on the stench of his desperation to be adored. None of this takes anything away from his tennis, and the good he probably does in Serbia and beyond. I'm sure at the heart of it all he's probably a good person... but yeah I think moron is pretty fair based on the above.

  • You do realise he has given about €10 million to hospitals across Italy, Serbia and Spain for treating Covid long before that event took place. He was hardly the only person to organise that event and the government and authorities gave it the go ahead because they had minimal cases at the time. I am not saying it was right but you would swear he was the only guy involved, loads of top players like Thiem, Zverev, dimitrov and countless others were part of it.

    All the players have their issues and questionable judgement. I used to really like Federer but then he became such a sore loser. That’s a trait that really bugs me, he has also been invisible with relation to more prize money for lower ranked players etc

  • On a separate note, phenomenal performance from Novak today winning his singles and doubles to bring Serbia into the semis. His volleying has become so good

  • Well if he'd donated all that money then surely he was aware of the dangers of it spreading amongst an unvaccinated population? Incorrect to say Serbia had minimal cases at the time, they were vastly underreported because of a pretty blasé attitude towards the pandemic. Yes I'm well aware there were others involved, however as the most famous and influential player Djokovic surely should have known better? And for him to then say he wouldn't have done anything differently...

    Not a fan of Federer either. I used to despise Nadal but I've become pretty ambivalent towards him the last few years.

  • I get that it shouldnt have happened but the Adria Tour was well intentioned, it was being held for charity. Its not like the players were there for a pay cheque, the proceeds were going to charity. I think the players intentions were good but it just ended up going pear shaped. Its easy to put the blame on one person for it but then also choose to ignore the other things that same individual has done to help, 10 million is pretty generous but of course that would never get any coverage because its Djokovic and he is always made out to be the villain.

    I am just saying people make mistakes. Who knows what Federer and Nadal have also done but even if they did, chances are the media wouldnt bother reporting it anyway, they are media darlings.

    I have huge respect for the big 3 as tennis players. I think Nadal always comes across a very nice guy and he keeps a very low profile. Federer for me comes across as the media darling but I am not the fan I once was. I think Djokovic is by far the most outspoken but I respect that he speaks his mind and at least he tries to push the case for players that are less well off and are struggling to afford playing on tour etc. I think the silence is deafening from many other top players

  • Advertisement

  • I think the silence form the players he's "trying to help" is deafening. His new player organisation seems to be a damp squib. I'd love to see the prize money being properly redistributed down the the lower ranked players and smaller tournaments. He says himself he was inside the system for 10 years, but he didn't see to get a lot done. You would think the thousands of lower ranked players would jump at this chance, but seemingly not.

    I think I've only seen Fed bitter once and that was 2019 Wimbledon, and I couldn't blame him, so close and yet so far. It always amazes me, and again this year, with Nadal being included in Sportsperson of the Year? His face when he loses is like a bulldog licking p!ss off a nettle.

  • Seriously, that's what's being wheeled out as sore loser?😂

    No wonder I don't watch press conferences. You get asked the most ridiculous questions and then people call you a sore loser when you've just lost the semi of a GS when you had 2 match points.

  • Actually thinking back on the last couple of years he is getting more annoyed on court, blasting the ball high into the roof etc. Plus I thought he was very disrespectful to the FO and Koepfer, in particular.

  • Advertisement

  • I think we've got different definitions of what's a sore loser. What Dimitrov did there is totally understandable, he's pissed off with himself and in the heat of the moment, the red mist comes down and he releases a bit of anger.

    Federer's interview is what I consider a sore loser. Long after the match has finished and the adrenalin is no longer flowing, he thinks and says about his opponent: "he (Djokovic) did not look at that point like someone who believes much anymore in winning. To lose against someone like that, it's very disappointing, because you feel like he was mentally out of it already. Just gets the lucky shot at the end, and off you go."

  • Yep, we must have. Dimitrov deprived his opponent of a proper finish to the match, and the title. Epitome of a sore loser. One step away from taking his ball and going home. Federer was pointing out that he thought ND was dead in the water, and he missed his chance. He explained the lucky bit later in it when he said if you play shots like that for 20 years it comes naturally - he's right. Not everyone can pulverise a return like that on match point, most people play safe. He comes across as very disappointed, but not a bad loser to me.

  • did you hear where he says Djokovic flukes the return winner and talks about his type being a quitter mentality and hitting slap shots??? I wouldn’t mind but in the 2010 US open semi the year before Djokovic saved match points hitting amazing winners. Federer comes across so bitter, this among other remarks really put me off him in latter years, really sore loser. Made it even sweeter when Djokovic did it to him again at Wimbledon 2019 final

  • Second time in a row he loses 2 match points to ND in New York. I'm not sure what you would expect from someone that has happened to? Dancing down the aisles maybe.

  • Well Federer did stop calling Djokovic "lucky" after that at least.

    Federer has a poor 5 set match win record compared to the other two and particularly compared to Djokovic. He's not really in the same ballpark in the clutch moments.

    ND 31-10 (76%)

    RN 22-12 (65%)

    RF 32-23 (58%)

    Post edited by glasso on

  • Not surprising Djokovic has the best 5 set record as he seems to have almost unlimited stamina and very rarely falters towards the end of a match, also probably the best clutch player of all time so tends to win the big pressure points. Nadal similar to Djokovic always had good stamina and tends to win the big points, both are mentally much stronger than Federer and could grind out wins, even when not at best. Federer relied much more heavily on his natural talent than either Djokovic or Nadal and struggled when taken into a dogfight, so when he was brought into a deciding 5th set it meant he wasn't playing that well. I always felt Federer wasn't really a clutch player, just his superior skill meant against most opponents he was never really in much trouble, but, when he did get into high pressure situations against the likes of Djokovic or Nadal, he wasn't ready for it, got frustrated and often just gave in too easily.

    All 3 are sore losers, pretty much all elite sports people are, some are just better at hiding it than others, so wouldn't really hold it against any of them, it's kinda part of the reason why they are so great, they absolutely hate losing and won't accept it.

    I was always a big fan of Federer on the court, loved his attaching style of play, but, lukewarm about him off court, tries to be too perfect and comes across as arrogant, don't think we see his true persona. Djokovic also comes across as arrogant, but, tends to speak his mind which I like, Nadal comes across as a guy who doesn't really like the spotlight and seems to be more humble than the other two.

  • Yes Djokovic has very good stamina usually but I think that it's more a case of mental fortitude.

    Federer could be relied on to throw in the towel mentally if the match was pushed out long enough and as seen in terms of match points, couldn't finish his breakfast on many occasions.

    in fact up to and including Wimbledon 2019 he had let a match slip 22 times having had match point

    Djokovic is the only person to do it to him more than once at a slam (3 times).

    Djokovic has only lost 3 matches in his entire career when he had match point and none of those was in a slam.

    Nadal in on 8 I believe.

    Post edited by glasso on

  • I agree with you, that's why I said both Djokovic and Nadal are mentally much stronger than Federer and that Federer was never really a clutch player, but, tended to be far enough ahead in matches or far superior to his opponent that it didn't matter. Had Federer been as mentally strong as Djokovic or Nadal I think he'd probably be up around 25 slams, still an amazing player, for me the most naturally gifted player of all time by a distance and played the most attractive style of tennis.

  • You'd wonder why Federer never tried with a coach who might be able to address this mental failing - a strong personality who had that mental edge in his day - a Lendl-type for example.

    Maybe his ego was just too big to allow that - who knows.

  • I think it came too easily to him, didn't have to work as hard for it as other players, Djokovic and Nadal are obviously great tennis players, but, not as naturally gifted as Federer, so they had to work harder to close the gap. Also Federer dominated everything outside of clay and everyone bar Nadal until his late twenties, so probably felt he didn't need to change, also probably why he was so slow to change racket too, effectively handicapping himself for a few years against the other top players. I think McEnroe said about Federer that he was too stubborn to change his game in order to overcome Nadal (before Djokovic began to dominate) when Nadal was basically the only player stopping him from claiming the calander grand slam every year, but, that that stubbornness was also one of the reasons he was a great champion. He's had a fantastic career, but, I think when he looks back on it, he'll have more regrets than either Djokovic or Nadal as both of them got closer to getting the maximum out of themselves.

  • Advertisement

  • I disagree that Federer dominated everyone outside of clay until his late 20s. Djokovic was beating Federer as early as 2007 and even in the US open final that year, Djokovic (close to a teenager at that time) had a load of set points in the first 2 sets and that match could so easily have gone a different route. Djokovic even beat Federer in the 2008 Australian Open. If you include all the years that Federer was in his 20s, Djokovic had 10 wins against him and nearly all of those were off clay. If you count the head to head from before Federer turned 30 years of age, Federer lead the H2H with Djokovic 14-10. Worth bearing in mind that Djokovic was only 24 when Federer turned 30 so way before he was in his prime.

    I would agree that Federer dominated most players in his 20s but he certainly didnt dominate Nadal and Djokovic and that was even before their respective primes.

  • Federer did initially dominate the rivalry with Djokovic, by end of 2010 (Federer 29) it was around 13- 6, it wasn't until around 2010/11 that Djokovic started to dominate the rivalry and I think it wasn't until around 2016/17 that he actually took the lead in their head to head, Federer obviously benefited in the early years before Djokovic reached maturity, and Djokovic has benefited as Federer aged ( from mid- thirties on). In the mid to late noughties, there was a period where it was really only Nadal preventing Federer from winning all the slams, at the time Djokovic began to establish himself as best of the rest, but, a bit behind the other 2, as we all know he eventually overtook both from around 2010/11 onwards as he matured and changed his diet.

  • Pre 2010, Djokovic was pretty much a kid. It actually amazes me that Novak was able to beat him in a slam as early as 2008 and even in 2007 their matches were super competitive. That US Open final in 2007, the score of 7-6 7-6 6-4 was so misleading, Djokovic had so many set points to win the first two sets. Even 2008 US open, their semi final was a very tight 4 set match with two sets nearly going to tie breakers. Novak even beat Federer in the 2010 US open before he went on that crazy run from 2011 onwards. Its easy to forget that in 2009 and 2010 Novaks form was pretty poor, he was having really bad issues with his serve.

    What is most startling about their rivalry is that Federer has not beaten Djokovic at a grand slam since Wimbledon 2012, thats nearly 10 years! When that match was played, Federer was only 30. He has lost all 6 grand slam meetings since then. I think its understandable he has lost the last couple due to his older age but up until 2015 Federer was still playing to a really high level. He was 34 then, when you look at Djokovic he has won 3 slams this year (now aged 34 and heading towards 35). I think it was Wimbledon 2014 that Federer was playing phenomenal, he had dispatched Murray quite comfortably in the semi finals and he himself was in great form at that time.

    I do agree that Federers level in his prime was exceptionally good but there is no doubt in my mind that he had lesser opposition during those years from 2003- 2007. Nadal only won his first Oz open in 2009 and his first US open in 2010. Prior to that he was dominant at the French but he only broke through at Wimbledon in 2008.

  • Andy Roddick had a dire backhand by mens' tennis standards and it was always a weakness and a real gift for the higher-level opponents. A failing that he never managed to develop it out of lack of application and/ or poor coaching.

    Hewitt also just didn't have enough power really and had faded a bit by the time Federer was threatening for slams after his good couple of years.

    Safin was good but only occasionally arsed to be fit and well-trained.

    Other final wins against bog-standard players like González and Philippoussis are self-explanatory.

    Until Nadal became a threat off clay Federer had it sweet in terms of opponents.

    And yes as I had pointed out before Djokovic has been dominating Federer from a time that Federer should have been still in his prime

    Djokovic has won 19 straight sets against Nadal on hard courts shows the level of domination that he has against Nadal on the most common surface. Nadal the clay-court supremo has managed 8 consecutive clay-court sets against Djokovic.

  • The Djokovic v Federer rivalry has always been fairly close, both can point to certain incidents in matches they lost to each other that could easily have gone the other way. Federer can obviously point to the 3 slam matches where he held match points and couldn't close out, which when all is said and done will probably be the difference between the two. There is little to choose between the 2, but, Djokovic's superior mental strength and toughness gives him the edge. I couldn't see Federer do what Djokovic did in turning those 3 matches around. If we were talking purely on tennis ability and style of play I would put Federer ahead, but, when you take everything into account, including mental strength, will to win, ability to produce the goods at the most pressurised moments then Djokovic comes out on top. Overall I would rate both above Nadal.

  • It's not close at all

    Djokovic is 11-6 in Grand Slams vs Federer where at nearly 2 to 1 it's a grand slam destruction

    It matters not a jot but for who actually closed out the match and won it.

  • I agree that what matters is who closes out the matches that's why I'd put Djokovic above Federer, but, it is closer than just looking at bare stats. Djokovic's mental strength is the main difference and the main reason he'll be considered the greatest when he finishes up. Going back to those 3 matches Federer held match points in (which essentially account for the difference) if positions were swapped Djokovic would close out all 3 matches and I don't believe Federer would turn any of those matches around. Djokovic has the ability to produce the goods for the most pressurised points, the points that decide matches, Federer wasn't as clinical.

  • It's also 13-6 in tournament finals (only a crossover of 3 of those tournament final wins with the slam wins for Djokovic talked about above and only 1 of those had Federer a match point in 2019)

    So any way you spin it, either in tournament finals and / or the grand slams Djokovic has mauled Federer in the big matches that they have played against each other.

    No other player has had a bigger effect on Federer's overall career record in big matches.

    He's also ahead in the overall head-to-head of course.

    The stats matter.

    If you had to sum up the "rivalry" with one photo this would be the most appropriate one really with a nod to the greater than 2 to 1 tournament finals win ratio in the head-to-head

    Post edited by glasso on

  • Djokovic is on the Australian Open 2022 entry list and is also listed on the Serbian team for the ATP Cup that is due to be held in Sydney from January 1 to 9 2022.

  • Advertisement

  • Serena not playing the Australian Open, says she's not where she needs to be physically. Looking like that's that for her really, next 'realistic' chance of winning a slam would be Wimbledon, and she'll be closer to 41 than 40 at that stage.

    Of course this also means she'll drop out of the top 100, so may have to rely on wildcards to get into slam main draws, although it's not like she'll be denied any. Just to work her way up to a slam seeding again she'll have to commit to more tournaments, so all looking pretty bleak for her.If only she'd held off on having kids she'd probably be on about 25 now.

    Regarding Djokovic, he was always going to be on the entry lists unless he'd specifically stated he was withdrawing. Still remains to be seen if he'll show up, but I think he will.