Chivito550 wrote: » Backed Djokovic at 11/4 just after the end of set 2. Paid for a lovely steak dinner out in the continental type weather this evening.
Girly Gal wrote: » He should definitely learn a lot from today, but, I wouldn't necessarily agree that you have to lose one to win one, he was in a great position, 2 sets up with his opponent not playing well, yes Djokovic improved, but, I'd still say Djokovic didn't play that well today, certainly well below the level he normally has to play to, to win a slam final Once Djokovic broke in the third set there really was only one winner for me, Tsitsipas completely lost his belief and started to play a lot of loose shots,obviously difficult knowing you have such a difficult opponent on the opposite side who just won't die like a normal player would.
Slashermcguirk wrote: » What a phenomenal competitor Djokovic is, just never knows when he is beaten. His mental strength at key moments is remarkable. First player in open era to win all slams twice, amazing achievement
MisterAnarchy wrote: » Tough as nails but I'd prefer if he played more attacking tennis like he did earlier in his career. He is alot more defensive as a player in recent times, happy to grind away for large parts of matches. He can play more aggressive tennis, I'd like to see that.
murphyebass wrote: » He’s a man that will continue to pay out. Bye bye Federer and Nadal. It’s over boys. He has youth on his side
yerwanthere123 wrote: » Once Djokovic got the early break in the fourth set I knew exactly where it was heading. I headed out for a run midway through the 5th, no point in continuing to watch as the match was clearly over. Mad as it may sound, I never entertained anyone else winning at the start of the tournament, I just assume it would be the usual Nadal stroll to the title. Had Nadal been on the opposite side of the draw and played Djokovic in the warmer conditions of the final it's possible the result would've been different. Obviously irrelevant though, and we'll never know for sure. The craziest thing for me is that Nadal will now probably never stand alone with the most grand slams of all time. I always thought he would, at least for a few months, but it's not looking likely now. It can't be ruled out completely though, let's not forget he's won the US Open four times. Who knows what'll happen between now and then, but if someone could take out Djokovic then he'd likely be the favourite. He'd need a lot of luck, but it's still possible that he could win 21 before the year is out. I can't currently see any other result than Djokovic winning Wimbledon though.
glasso wrote: » Djokovic is a winning machine. He wins. He's given up on wanting to be loved by the crowds in the stands or at home watching Tv. He has his following now and he's focused on winning more GS titles and he's doing ok there Has even had analytics guys working for him in the past working out the best way to do it.
forumdedum wrote: » Crying shame Federer messed up that Wimbledon to move 2 ahead of Djokovic. Federer outclassed him and somehow lost.
forumdedum wrote: » I like many others just don't watch anymore. Tennis not as popular as it once was.
glasso wrote: » Federer just isn't and never was as mentally strong as Djokovic. Too much of the "oh lovely shot Roger" stuff went to his head to his detriment and he just wasn't as good at winning.
glasso wrote: » Djokovic doesn't really care. He's on a mission. When all is said and done he will have pretty much all the records. That's what he wants. If you can't see the beauty in his pure will to win then so be it.
forumdedum wrote: » Federer was older? That's the sad part. At his peak no one could lace his boots.
forumdedum wrote: » Good for him, he's incredibly dull. Used to think he was super.
glasso wrote: » Federer had a good number of years where aside from Nadal and the very odd time Safin was in the mood he barely had to face any player of any great stature.
forumdedum wrote: » And most of these guys including Djokovic win when they meet bottlers like your man today. Sad reflection of a sport that no one up and coming.
Chivito550 wrote: » Backed Nadal at 7/4 to win tournament there at end of 3rd set.
glasso wrote: » that "bottler" did quite well actually and made a match of it right to the end. Fed himself did the ultimate bottle job. Complete lack of respect to the event.
forumdedum wrote: » Basically like Djokovic these days. Nadal is done, Fed too old.
yerwanthere123 wrote: » Had Nadal been on the opposite side of the draw and played Djokovic in the warmer conditions of the final it's possible the result would've been different. Obviously irrelevant though, and we'll never know for sure. I can't currently see any other result than Djokovic winning Wimbledon though.
glasso wrote: » Tsipsitas would be better than any Roddick or out-of-date Hewitt tbh
lostcat wrote: » If Nadal had put away that volley the other night he may well have won the match and, as someone said above, he would probalby have made shorter work of Tsitisipas today than Djokovic did. et voila, 21. A lot of the younger guys have a game thats a decent fit for grass, so I wouldn't have Djokovic as hot favourite for Wimbledon, just favourite. The US is wide open at this stage also I think so Djokovic getting to 20+ is still going to take a small bit of doing. I think Nadal is going to need, as you say, a good slice of luck to win a slam this side of next years French. And Tsitsipas will be a year stronger by then then, Thiem might be back, and Nadal might be seeded 4 or 5.
forumdedum wrote: » Not sure Tsipsitas has the grit of either of those.
glasso wrote: » that's reaching. Djokovic would have won this match in max 4 and easily 3 if he didn't go into bants mode with the umpire and space out for 2 minutes at 6-5 in the first. that's a lot more plausible of an argument. no guarantee indeed that Djokovic will take Wimbledon but by the end of 2022 he will have 21 at least I think.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
