Wrong thread guys!
Berrettini takes out Thiem with ease in the Swiss Open
Will face Ruud in the final
basically just an exhibition event though no?
Murray, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will play for Bjorg in the Laver Cup this year.
it's a bit moot with Omicron on the scene in fairness as current vaccines offer little protection in terms of actual infection (severity yes).
30,000 plus cases a day (or real figure could be far higher in reality) in Ireland and the majority of people testing positive being double vaxxed and with the booster.
2022 thread.
Time to review this. All four grand slams did indeed get played, and (I think?) with mostly full crowds, although the Australian Open did have a few days behind closed doors and the French Open did have that rather pointless 8pm curfew in place. I think most of the masters didn't have any limits on attendance? Can't fully remember.
Wasn't exactly a hard prediction, but we did indeed see two new winners on the WTA side, as well as four different slam winners. I was oddly closely to predicting Fernandez would win a slam and also correct about someone having a meteoric rise, just had no idea it would (or could) be Raducanu. Obviously, I didn't see Krejcikova coming either.
I was correct in saying there wasn't a whole lot of change on the ATP side, although injuries largely wiped out Thiem and Federer's seasons. Was a bit surprising to see Nadal walk away empty-handed this year but unsurprising to see Djokovic almost do a clean sweep. Sinner wasn't a big threat at this years slams but he did have a big year, rising from #37 to #10. Wouldn't be surprising to see him go deeper next year, but Alcaraz is probably the one a lot of us have our eye on now.
I don't think there were any major slip-ups on the covid front, but that's a question we might see answered based on who does and doesn't show up in Melbourne.
The list was doing the rounds on Twitter a few days ago, you'll be able to find it if you search. It's a very small, precise set of circumstances, you'd have to be very sceptical of anyone who managed to fit the criteria.
It's all up in the air though whether any medical exemptions are going to be granted, some reports saying they will whilst others are saying absolutely not. Serbian media in particularly seems divided about Djokovic's participation, there's a new report every couple of days contradicting the other.
Just wondering what could the possible medical exemptions be? All players would be fit and healthy, only thing I could think of is possibly being allergic to the vaccine.
This in the article "all Open players would be staying in the same accommodation – Crown Towers – during the tournament"
If I was vaccinated, I would not want a potentially unvaccinated person sharing my space. Wonder would any players have the bottle to speak up?
So, it looks like a fudge has been reached.
Players will be able to play without having to disclose whether they're vaccinated or not.
And medical exemptions will be allowed in Melbourne.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/dec/22/novak-djokovic-wants-to-play-at-australian-open-says-tennis-australia-chief
Nadal has tested positive for Covid
Do (vaccinated) players have to wait 14 days after a positive test before being allowed to travel to Australia? Or do they have to show a negative PCR?
I don't think he'll be in Melbourne. Which mightn't be a bad thing for him anyway. It's a long trip for a tournament he had little chance of winning. This way he has more time to focus on his return and being in good shape for Roland Garos.
Well, Nadal plays with his weaker hand, so it's possible. The kid will never learn to make a half decent backhand, which will be interesting to see if he plays at a pro level. I can see problems unless he is naturally ambidextrous.
Imagine if this kid turned out any good - would be an interesting development!
Read the thread wrong.
Also a statement from the Australian Open
Defending champion Djokovic will play for an incredible 10th Australian Open trophy — and a men’s record 21st major singles title — and will be the favourite in a draw which showcases 49 of the world’s top 50 including world No.2 Daniil Medvedev, who beat top-ranked Djokovic in this year’s US Open final.
Whatever about the AO listing from seedings, Djokovic would not be named in the Sydney ATP Cup team for Serbia automatically.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
