2014 Wimbledon Championships...London, England

[GeoffWilliams]

Joker had a drop emotionally, and for all the world looked like it was over for fed, and then picked it up, which is almost impossible to do in that pressure. Wow. He gets better the stiffer he becomes. No one in history gets better with stiffness.

[klacr]

Djokovic is now 7 wins and 7 losses in Grand Slam finals.

Djokovic also becomes first man in open era to win his first 2 Wimbledon titles after the age of 22.

Djokovic only player to defeat Federer in all four grand slams.

Roger Federer has lost in eight grand slam finals. Half of those losses have been in five sets.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

I love Federer but...

The worst thing to happen to Roger federer in that match was that he won the first set against Djokovic. I made a comment in the pro shop to our desk girl (Huge Federer fan) and some of my membership that was watching that if Federer won this first set he would lose in 4 sets.

Federer playing Djokovic's game, staying on the baseline, wanting to rally with him was not what I wanted to see. He would not be able to keep that up. Djokovic had a set point in the first set tie-break but did not convert. Federer was lucking to escape with a first set win. The problem was, that first set victory gave Federer a false sense of confidence, thinking he can continue to play that style against Djokovic. Djokovic started raising his level and turning the screws and Roger did not keep up. The stubborness of Federer is what makes him great, like many champions, but also led to his downfall at times. By escaping the first set, Roger was content playing a game more conducive to what Djokovic wanted. Roger with great strokes but not a strategy savant. Greatest shotmaker and talent in tennis, but perhaps lacking in matchplay skills. Am I being blasphemous here? A heretic? It's actually a compliment to Roger. That he has won this much in his career on talent and skills alone. Maybe the guys he beat earlier in his career 2003-2007 not on the same tactical level as Nadal and Djokovic. Federer having hard time with them as his talent and shotmaking does not carry him through against these specimens.

Another issue in the match, and this is a big one...was 2nd serve points won. Holy crap Djokovic dominated this statistic by 20%. Novak won 65% of his 2nd serve points, Federer, only 45%. Very tough to play at that level, win a major, winning only 45% of your 2nd serves. The only thing that saved Roger was once again...his shotmaking ability and ridiculously clutch serving on the 1st serves. But when it came time to hit the 2nd serve, odds werein Djokovic's favor.

You're only as good as your second serve, or in Federer's case, only as good as the points you win on your 2nd serve.

Credit to Djokovic. He said his convictions were stronger than his doubts as he made a real mess of that 4th set. I was pulling for Roger but looking at the x's and o's, Djokovic deserved to win the match. But man was i crushed for Roger. What a great champion, what a great person.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I managed to see the first two sets before going on holiday. I am writing from Venice...what a city!

The first two sets were won by barely a thread and played at a high standard. I missed the rest of the match but will catch up with it on tape.

After reading various reports on the match, the one thing I know for sure without having to see it with my own eyes was the tremendous strength of character it must have taken to rally and win the fifth set after having held match points in the fourth. Djokovic has to be up there with Borg and Gonzales to do that. It's a tremendous effort.

[don_budge]

The Epic...was mediocre and here's why

Boys and girls...the Battle of the Sexes will never be won...too much fraternization with enemy.

Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic

Today there are two real important factors...well three. Well possibly more. Maybe this isn't going to be so simple afterall.

Number one...the most important factor is the condition of the court. Here you must read the thread "Jack Kramer explains various Grips..." and/or "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" by Bill Tilden. Knowing what you will know from these two sources you will know all that you need to know that all things being equal...advantage Roger Federer.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2610&highlight=jack+kramer+grips

Number three...mental preparation. Djokovic's play has been spotty up to this point in the tournament. Is he simply in bad form or does he have some "niggles" that are inhibiting his play?

To me...Djokovic is perhaps the most dangerous player on the tour in the regard that he knows how to let the game come to him. He showed us in a couple of matches here that he can look somewhat defeated and struggling then he suddenly stands up and rights himself and turns it on to his opponent. Suddenly it is he that is pounding them into submission.

Federer used to have this type of wherewithal. But it appears that Djokovic has the best ability to let the game come to him...he can hang in there and weather the storm. For Federer's part it is important that he comes out of the gates and gets on top quickly. At this stage of his career he is a fine front runner but his ability to battle back from behind against the big guys is suspect.

The conditions may favor Roger. If I am Stefan Edberg I am conjuring up motivation for Federer to get to the net where the footing is a bit better and being on the attack will bolster his confidence. It is imperative that Roger serves immaculately. One other thing is I would have Roger dial in that slice backhand in all of its possible shapes and forms to neutralize the speed and consistency of Djokovic. He should be laser like in his precision to lay that ball back near the baseline where the bounce has become tremendously "iffy". Also laser like in playing it short and varied pace and spin. Might as well stack the percentages in any way possible. Never give your opponent a ball that he likes to hit...another Tilden pearl of wisdom.

The condition of the court is terrible behind the baseline and on the baseline. Let's see how much of a factor this is today and who can take advantage of it. Remember...topspin brings the ball down and underspin carries the ball. I would like to see that ball carrying to the baseline...but I would also like to see Federer bringing Djokovic forwards into the forecourt on low balls where his grips render him less effective.

Grigor Dimitrov had at one point in his match neutralized the initial onslaught of Djokovic and he did it by slicing and being patient. He won a number of points by being patient as slicing and dicing four or five shots before he really seized the initiative. But it appeared that he gave up on these tactics a bit...which he shouldn't have. The conditions certainly were favorable to this sort of play. These tactics also played to Djokovic's weaknesses. Never change a winning game and always change a losing game...another parable out of the Tilden manifesto.

The conditions and the moment and the location all seem to be tipped in Roger's direction. It is his match to go out and win. It will take steely nerves against the wily Djokovic...who can never be counted out. He will never underestimate an opponent...even if that opponent is none other than Roger Federer.

I guess it wasn't so simple or brief. It seemed like it was when I was talking to my dear old Dad.

Well...I am going to go out on a limb here and I have another take on this "epic" between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. I don't think the standard was very high at all. In fact it sort of amazes me what everyone is taking for an epic performance and what I see is real mediocrity.

I have a feeling that I am going to take some heat for this...someone can explain to me otherwise.

Novak Djokovic...a Wimbledon champion whose skills at the net and mid court are real mediocre.

Roger Federer...was there a game plan? What was it?

In a nut shell. Tennis tactics are fairly straight forward...each player is trying to exploit the others weakness. Each player is trying to impose his will or his game on the opponent. Never give your opponent a ball that he likes to hit.

Three swing volleys and three lost points.

Every single slice backhand that Roger plays creates just a bit of indecision on Djokovic. Either Djokovic plays a rather tentative slice himself or he has missed routine shots. But the point is Djokovic has not hurt Federer off of any of the slice backhands. None of the "elegant" topspin drives that Federer hits make the slightest impression on Djokovic. Not the slightest.

Doesn't Roger understand this? His tactic should be...aggressive off of the forehand side and move him around. Defense off of the backhand side...and move him around. The defense style is passively aggressive. Vary the spin, speed, direction and depth. There you go...game plan.

I don't know how many times Federer approached with topspin right into the teeth of Djokovic's strength. His strength? Read his grips and his exaggerated ATP type X whatever it is. He prefers balls right up around his shoulders. Why is Roger hitting swinging volleys? How many did he try and how many points did he win with it? I don't remember a single point that he won with it. The swinging volley indicates that he is not comfortable hitting high forehand volleys...a major glaring deficiency if he is going to have any success at the net on a consistent basis.

The Federer approach game lacks any imagination and his volleys are really too shaky to depend upon them for the duration of a five set match.

Speaking of a lack of imagination...why does he continue to hit his oh so elegant topspin backhand right into the teeth of the Djokovic strength. Once again Novak prefers the ball from waist to shoulder height and isn't that what Roger is repeatedly pitching to him over and over and over. Boy...talk about getting a groove on. Novak isn't going to miss too many of those and all of the while he is going to do just what he said that he is going to do to Marin Cilic when he noticed that he was tiring...he is going to move you around. So he kept Federer pinned down on the backhand corner and when he felt like moving him...he moved him over to the forehand and how many forehands did Roger spray yesterday...quite a few I would say.

Every single time Roger Federer or Grigor Dimitrov for that matter kept slicing to the Novak Djokovic backhand I didn't see Djokovic get aggressive one single time. That was with the weak versions of the modern day slice. Bring back that Rosewallian for the grass and make that ball lie down and shoot off of the lawn. Never give your opponent the ball that he likes to hit...another Bill Tilden axiom.

The first time Federer started this tactic against Djokovic he had Novak dropping his two hand and he was exchanging one hand slices with Federer. The crowd was murmuring and making so much noise when he employed this tactic the first time. It was if they had never seen it before either. What a stupid crown...it figures...I wanted to tell them to shut up. They were making too much noise...too much stupid noise. Wasn't this the game that Roger wanted him to play? Absolutely it was. It makes every bit of sense rather than hitting that lame topspin right into the Djokovic wheelhouse.

Never change a winning game and always change a losing game. One of the most basic of commandments from the Bible of Tennis. Bill Tilden. By the way it was Harry Hopman who said that. Federer was in the drivers seat every single point that he engaged Djokovic in this manner and every single point that he tried to match topspin backhand to topspin backhand he was checkmated.

Overall I believe that the match was very poorly played in some real glaring respects...compared to the way that tennis was meant to be played. I can only imagine what John McEnroe really thinks when he isn't suited up playing to the hand that feeds him. He let on at times. A Wimbledon Champion that doesn't know how to serve and volley, doesn't know how to properly approach the net, doesn't know how to play consistent penetrating volleys and plays the entire match virtually from the backcourt.

The challenger was even more disappointing. His weak attempts at the chip and charge on floating "feed" balls that were inviting Djokovic to smash them by him. His inability to execute routine approach shots and his inability to execute a basic game plan based on his strengths and weaknesses and his opponents strengths and weaknesses.

The match was close. There was some rather good serving. It went five sets. It was not an epic. It was a very mediocrely played final in the greatest tournament in the world.

[klacr]

Check my last post don_budge. I mentioned about Roger's lack of tactics, x's and o's. Maybe most talented player ever and incredible shot maker, but strategy wise, he leaves quite a bit on the table

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[hockeyscout]

But man was i crushed for Roger. What a great champion, what a great person.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

My eight year old goes to bed at 5 pm every night here, but she stayed up until the end which was about 7:30 I think. Lost track of time. Cried like a baby after the first set, and got emotional (probably because it was getting late). Went to bed crying. Woke up in the middle of the night crying. Went to tennis court at 7:30 am and cried all morning according to the hitting partner. Went to judo and cried. Of course everyone asked, "What's wrong." The response, "Oh nothing." By 1 pm Roger was forgotten about and the young one was screaming at me to let her go hit on the wall all afternoon or she'd climb the walls! The wall did not tell me if she cried or not.

[klacr]

Did anyone else quietly contemplate that for the fifth set, Djokovic and Federer should have sat down and Becker and Edberg should have played that final set? Or was it just me?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Men's Final...The Championships

Here it is...courtesy of youtube. The men's single final...the 2014 Wimbledon Championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgqG0o7Ysrs

[DougEng]

Couldn't Agree More

I love Federer but...

The worst thing to happen to Roger federer in that match was that he won the first set against Djokovic. I made a comment in the pro shop to our desk girl (Huge Federer fan) and some of my membership that was watching that if Federer won this first set he would lose in 4 sets.

Federer playing Djokovic's game, staying on the baseline, wanting to rally with him was not what I wanted to see. He would not be able to keep that up. Djokovic had a set point in the first set tie-break but did not convert. Federer was lucking to escape with a first set win. The problem was, that first set victory gave Federer a false sense of confidence, thinking he can continue to play that style against Djokovic. Djokovic started raising his level and turning the screws and Roger did not keep up. The stubborness of Federer is what makes him great, like many champions, but also led to his downfall at times. By escaping the first set, Roger was content playing a game more conducive to what Djokovic wanted. Roger with great strokes but not a strategy savant. Greatest shotmaker and talent in tennis, but perhaps lacking in matchplay skills. Am I being blasphemous here? A heretic? It's actually a compliment to Roger. That he has won this much in his career on talent and skills alone. Maybe the guys he beat earlier in his career 2003-2007 not on the same tactical level as Nadal and Djokovic. Federer having hard time with them as his talent and shotmaking does not carry him through against these specimens.

Another issue in the match, and this is a big one...was 2nd serve points won. Holy crap Djokovic dominated this statistic by 20%. Novak won 65% of his 2nd serve points, Federer, only 45%. Very tough to play at that level, win a major, winning only 45% of your 2nd serves. The only thing that saved Roger was once again...his shotmaking ability and ridiculously clutch serving on the 1st serves. But when it came time to hit the 2nd serve, odds werein Djokovic's favor.

You're only as good as your second serve, or in Federer's case, only as good as the points you win on your 2nd serve.

Credit to Djokovic. He said his convictions were stronger than his doubts as he made a real mess of that 4th set. I was pulling for Roger but looking at the x's and o's, Djokovic deserved to win the match. But man was i crushed for Roger. What a great champion, what a great person.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Totally agree Kyle. Federer wins on talent and shotmaking. Rarely on tactics.
So when he's superior to opponents in most dimensions, he wins hands down. When he is about the same, he usually loses. In terms of physical ability, talent and skills, he is even with Nadal or Djokovic. But Nadal owns him since Federer can't solve tactical problems on a consistent basis. Djokovic will beat him 55-65% of the time now for the same reasons. And Nadal and Djokovic know their strengths and play to them. Federer doesn't know his strengths and weaknesses. Scary. But a clinical match which shows was the loss to Robredo at the 2013 US Open. Federer was beaten by someone who figured out how to win tactically. Tommy just stayed with his game plan and beat Roger. The same that Wawrinka did to Nadal in 2014 AO. Stan played a specific game to beat Nadal. Federer doesn't play a disciplined game to beat players. So against someone with equal ability but better discipline, Federer will usually lose. A bit like Brazil losing the Germany. Talent is not everything. I wonder if Federer eve sat down with someone to analyze his tactical patterns and percent winners/errors/consistency patterns. He got Edberg in his corner which helps marginally but Federer's weakness is not his offense. It's his defense and discipline. The serve return game of Federer is simply not at the same level as Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. For example, he misses way too many backhand slice returns for a player of his level. He also lacks discipline on attacking the serve return or using the inside-out forehand as a approach or to move his opponent off. It's not just low shot tolerance but understanding what he needs to win. It's the major area Roger can improve (that's how Ferrer stays close to the top). If Roger ever realized that, he'd have a shot at #1 still and maybe two more majors.

Anyhow, in short, we still want and expect more from Federer.

Best,
Doug

[GeoffWilliams]

He ranks about 20th-25th on returning. All the other top guys are in the top area. He wins with his serving, which is top area. HIs bh, also has a basic flaw: he lifts his hitting foot too early, which is a sign of lack of confidence, and degrounds his weight doing so, unlike Wawrinka.

[gzhpcu]

Oh well, all things considered, he still did pretty well winning 17 grandslam tournaments...

[don_budge]

Keeping it current...

Totally agree Kyle. Federer wins on talent and shotmaking. Rarely on tactics.
So when he's superior to opponents in most dimensions, he wins hands down. When he is about the same, he usually loses. In terms of physical ability, talent and skills, he is even with Nadal or Djokovic. But Nadal owns him since Federer can't solve tactical problems on a consistent basis. Djokovic will beat him 55-65% of the time now for the same reasons. And Nadal and Djokovic know their strengths and play to them. Federer doesn't know his strengths and weaknesses. Scary. But a clinical match which shows was the loss to Robredo at the 2013 US Open. Federer was beaten by someone who figured out how to win tactically. Tommy just stayed with his game plan and beat Roger. The same that Wawrinka did to Nadal in 2014 AO. Stan played a specific game to beat Nadal. Federer doesn't play a disciplined game to beat players. So against someone with equal ability but better discipline, Federer will usually lose. A bit like Brazil losing the Germany. Talent is not everything. I wonder if Federer eve sat down with someone to analyze his tactical patterns and percent winners/errors/consistency patterns. He got Edberg in his corner which helps marginally but Federer's weakness is not his offense. It's his defense and discipline. The serve return game of Federer is simply not at the same level as Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. For example, he misses way too many backhand slice returns for a player of his level. He also lacks discipline on attacking the serve return or using the inside-out forehand as a approach or to move his opponent off. It's not just low shot tolerance but understanding what he needs to win. It's the major area Roger can improve (that's how Ferrer stays close to the top). If Roger ever realized that, he'd have a shot at #1 still and maybe two more majors.

Anyhow, in short, we still want and expect more from Federer.

Best,
Doug

Nice post...it quickly got pushed back to the previous page. Must read for forum readers.

[stotty]

Federer wins on talent and shotmaking. Rarely on tactics.
So when he's superior to opponents in most dimensions, he wins hands down. When he is about the same, he usually loses. In terms of physical ability, talent and skills, he is even with Nadal or Djokovic. But Nadal owns him since Federer can't solve tactical problems on a consistent basis. Djokovic will beat him 55-65% of the time now for the same reasons. And Nadal and Djokovic know their strengths and play to them. Federer doesn't know his strengths and weaknesses. Scary. But a clinical match which shows was the loss to Robredo at the 2013 US Open. Federer was beaten by someone who figured out how to win tactically. Tommy just stayed with his game plan and beat Roger. The same that Wawrinka did to Nadal in 2014 AO. Stan played a specific game to beat Nadal. Federer doesn't play a disciplined game to beat players. So against someone with equal ability but better discipline, Federer will usually lose. A bit like Brazil losing the Germany. Talent is not everything. I wonder if Federer eve sat down with someone to analyze his tactical patterns and percent winners/errors/consistency patterns. He got Edberg in his corner which helps marginally but Federer's weakness is not his offense. It's his defense and discipline. The serve return game of Federer is simply not at the same level as Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. For example, he misses way too many backhand slice returns for a player of his level. He also lacks discipline on attacking the serve return or using the inside-out forehand as a approach or to move his opponent off. It's not just low shot tolerance but understanding what he needs to win. It's the major area Roger can improve (that's how Ferrer stays close to the top). If Roger ever realized that, he'd have a shot at #1 still and maybe two more majors.

Anyhow, in short, we still want and expect more from Federer.

Best,
Doug

Nice post...it quickly got pushed back to the previous page. Must read for forum readers.

Yes, Doug's post is really, really interesting. It's a really different take on things.

In the first couple of sets (I haven't seen the other 3 sets yet) I thought Djokovic negated Federer a lot by hitting such a good length. Which led me to think what could Federer do about that?

My question to Doug would be how can Federer employ tactics against Djokovic when Djokovic is hitting such a good length. It seems to take away a lot of tactical options for Federer...or anyone?

[klacr]

Totally agree Kyle. Federer wins on talent and shotmaking. Rarely on tactics.
So when he's superior to opponents in most dimensions, he wins hands down. When he is about the same, he usually loses. In terms of physical ability, talent and skills, he is even with Nadal or Djokovic. But Nadal owns him since Federer can't solve tactical problems on a consistent basis. Djokovic will beat him 55-65% of the time now for the same reasons. And Nadal and Djokovic know their strengths and play to them. Federer doesn't know his strengths and weaknesses. Scary. But a clinical match which shows was the loss to Robredo at the 2013 US Open. Federer was beaten by someone who figured out how to win tactically. Tommy just stayed with his game plan and beat Roger. The same that Wawrinka did to Nadal in 2014 AO. Stan played a specific game to beat Nadal. Federer doesn't play a disciplined game to beat players. So against someone with equal ability but better discipline, Federer will usually lose. A bit like Brazil losing the Germany. Talent is not everything. I wonder if Federer eve sat down with someone to analyze his tactical patterns and percent winners/errors/consistency patterns. He got Edberg in his corner which helps marginally but Federer's weakness is not his offense. It's his defense and discipline. The serve return game of Federer is simply not at the same level as Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. For example, he misses way too many backhand slice returns for a player of his level. He also lacks discipline on attacking the serve return or using the inside-out forehand as a approach or to move his opponent off. It's not just low shot tolerance but understanding what he needs to win. It's the major area Roger can improve (that's how Ferrer stays close to the top). If Roger ever realized that, he'd have a shot at #1 still and maybe two more majors.

Anyhow, in short, we still want and expect more from Federer.

Best,
Doug

Thanks Doug. Glad someone else shares my views or at least is able to see what I've been saying for years. Tough to say those thoughts to general fans who only see the highlights and shotmaking through rose-tinted glasses. It's a hard and bitter pill to swallow to look at greatness and a player so many of us love (myself included) with a critical eye, but it is something we must do to further develop our own teachings and understanding of this awesome game.

His backhand chip return was a huge disappointment in the title match. Unable to do anything with it giving Djokovic the freewill to dictate from the first groundstroke.

Roger's serve certainly has the clutch factor of getting him out of trouble (most times)

His hiring of Edberg was more out of mutual respect and admiration for the man, not for Edberg's defensive skills and tactics he brings to the table.

It is hard to convince a player who has already won more grand slam titles (singles) than any other man that quite simply and bluntly that he leaves much to be desired on the x's and o's department. Just imagine if Federer was a great tactician. He would have 22. 23, 24, 25 majors by now? So many parts of Roger's game is topic of conversation and I'm glad this specific issue is coming to light.

On another note...Doug, hope to see you in NYC for the Open and Tennis Teacher's Conference. We need to get together and discuss some industry happenings.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton