This shit is nuts right now. Anyone else watching?

Federer two championship points on serve and he messes up the forehand. I thought he played the overall better tennis, but in those big points, Novak just controlled things.

And England just won the Cricket World Cup in the Super Over by a run. Scores were levelled, but England won it by scoring an extra boundary.

Crazy weekend of sport. That's coming off a crazy State of Origin decider as well in the Rugby League.

Jesus Christ Fed, only you can lose so spectacularly. More points won. 2 MPs on his own serve. The greatest tiebreak player ever yet loses all 3 of them, spraying errors all over the place. Coming that close on a slower-playing grass court, after beating Rafa in the SF.

The guy is 10 years past his prime, a month shy of 38, so I should just be happy to see him still in there competing with the very best, but it's the hope that kills.

For a Fed fan, this was like some horror combination of the 2009 Australian Open F (being the better player for all of the first 4 sets and somehow only splitting them), the 2015 Wimbledon F (better player in the first set and then collapsing in the breaker) and the 2011 US Open SF (losing from double MP up on his serve).

After he'd finally exercised the 2008 F demons by beating Rafa in the SF here, it would've been an ultimate career-defining moment to beat both of them back-to-back at his age.

Incredible match, but as a Fed fan, it is hard to not be bitter about him losing another big match to Novak that he should've won, by choking at crucial moments. It is understandable for him to do so as he gets older and knows these chances are less and less likely, causing him to tighten up. Absolutely terrible decision to come in on that approach on the second MP against Novak of all people.

We've been saying it for the last 5 years but something is wrong with the lack of young talent being able to compete. Novak is 5 years past his physical prime and is the dominant player in the world still, backed up by Rafa (at least 5 years beyond his physical prime) and Fed. Rafa and Novak came along and took over from Fed when they should've, as Fed entered his late 20s. While Novak has been in his late 20s and early 30s, his biggest rivals have been contemporaries Rafa and Murray and older Fed. There have been no teenagers/early 20s threats in sight, for the first time ever in the Open era.

Fed has been trying to protect his Majors record himself the last 5 years, when he is half a decade older than Rafa and Novak, because there are just missing generations of top players. Hopefully Tsitsipas gets there, since Zverev already looks a lost cause in that regard.

Sometimes Federer hits approaches and comes wandering into the net and I'm genuinely like 'wtf are you doing'. Amazing that arguably the greatest sportsperson of all time is so prone to freezing in big moments.

I thought bottler Fed was gone after he beat Nadal in Melbourne two years ago, but he's back.

I'll regret this post tomorrow when I'm no longer fuming. Obviously a great match, arguably the best since the 2012 Melbourne final.

I'm not a student of tennis, and this is a rare match I've watched in full, but it really did feel like Federer was the better player but couldn't get the job done when it mattered, most notably in tiebreaks.

But Djokovic is one resourceful playyer, always able to fight back when he's up against the wall, and the pressure he applied was apparently too much for Federer to handle. It was painful watching him collapse in the tiebreaks after they were so evenly matched in the regular games of sets 1, 3 and 5.

In the earlier stages of the tournament I watched Nishikori (for the first time) beat up on some jobber and he was very impressive. I guess that is the case for all the top 10 players, but I was so impressed that I made a point of watching his QF match vs Federer. At times he was playing on par, or even slightly better, than Federer, but the consistency just isn't there. I guess that's what the Top Three have over everyone else. They have endless stamina and are extremely consistent and level-headed.

I usually watch the Wimbledon final without fail, however today I saw none of it due to England winning the cricket World Cup for the first time ever today! Will catch the tennis highlights later

Jul 14, 2019 18:40:09 GMT Strobe said:

Jesus Christ Fed, only you can lose so spectacularly. More points won. 2 MPs on his own serve. The greatest tiebreak player ever yet loses all 3 of them, spraying errors all over the place. Coming that close on a slower-playing grass court, after beating Rafa in the SF.

The guy is 10 years past his prime, a month shy of 38, so I should just be happy to see him still in there competing with the very best, but it's the hope that kills.

For a Fed fan, this was like some horror combination of the 2009 Australian Open F (being the better player for all of the first 4 sets and somehow only splitting them), the 2015 Wimbledon F (better player in the first set and then collapsing in the breaker) and the 2011 US Open SF (losing from double MP up on his serve).

After he'd finally exercised the 2008 F demons by beating Rafa in the SF here, it would've been an ultimate career-defining moment to beat both of them back-to-back at his age.

Incredible match, but as a Fed fan, it is hard to not be bitter about him losing another big match to Novak that he should've won, by choking at crucial moments. It is understandable for him to do so as he gets older and knows these chances are less and less likely, causing him to tighten up. Absolutely terrible decision to come in on that approach on the second MP against Novak of all people.

We've been saying it for the last 5 years but something is wrong with the lack of young talent being able to compete. Novak is 5 years past his physical prime and is the dominant player in the world still, backed up by Rafa (at least 5 years beyond his physical prime) and Fed. Rafa and Novak came along and took over from Fed when they should've, as Fed entered his late 20s. While Novak has been in his late 20s and early 30s, his biggest rivals have been contemporaries Rafa and Murray and older Fed. There have been no teenagers/early 20s threats in sight, for the first time ever in the Open era.

Fed has been trying to protect his Majors record himself the last 5 years, when he is half a decade older than Rafa and Novak, because there are just missing generations of top players. Hopefully Tsitsipas gets there, since Zverev already looks a lost cause in that regard.

Honestly I think it's  because Fed, Rafa, and Novak are just that damn good.  Probably the best trio of players ever.

It's ridiculous that the three most successful players in terms of Slams have all played in the same era. The three of them are absolute freaks. As a huge Murray fan, it shows the work he had to do to compete with these guys for so long, and pick up 3 slams and 2 Olympic gold. In any other era he would be a 10x Slam winner

Jul 14, 2019 21:02:09 GMT thereallt said:

Honestly I think it's  because Fed, Rafa, and Novak are just that damn good.  Probably the best trio of players ever.

That may be the case and I think the future will tell us more. There has never been a time before when the top guys entered their late 20s and there wasn't the next gen coming up to take over. We are now in a case where those same guys have entered their early 30s and the gen that should be taking over from the gen that should've took over haven't appeared yet either.

The early years of the Open era were dominated by older players because of the pro/am divide that had proceeded it. Then from John Newcombe winning the 1973 AO at 28 years 7 months until Fed won the 2012 Wimbledon, only 18/154 (11.7%) of Majors were won by people over that age. At this year's Wimbledon, the youngest QFist was 28 years 7 months. Historically, that is just bizarre. Yet we have been seeing the latter stages of tournaments full of older players these last few years.

It isn't like it is just Novak, Fed and Rafa that are beating up on all these 18-26 year olds. Guys like Fabio Fognini and Roberto Bautista Agut are at their highest ever rankings at the ages of 32 and 31 respectively. John Isner was at his highest ranking a year ago at 33.

In the last year or two, we have finally seen some youngsters get into the top 16 and top 10, but they aren't coming remotely close to getting to a Major final (pretty much every all-time great had made a Major final by at least 21). If it was just Fed, Rafa and Novak stopping them all, that could side with the too good argument. But it isn't.

It seems like either the conditions/environment (court speeds, racket tech, money distribution) are advantageous to older players more so than at any other point in history or there is something wrong with the last few generations of players that has never really been seen before.

Jul 14, 2019 21:35:58 GMT daveymolz said:

It's ridiculous that the three most successful players in terms of Slams have all played in the same era. The three of them are absolute freaks. As a huge Murray fan, it shows the work he had to do to compete with these guys for so long, and pick up 3 slams and 2 Olympic gold. In any other era he would be a 10x Slam winner

I'm a big Murray fan, but I don't think it quite works like that. He has played in the most homogenous era that had to have helped all of the big four be so consistent and avoid upsets, going deep in nearly all tournaments.

His mentality in the biggest matches and second serve are big weaknesses that would be a problem at any time.

We can hardly just assume he would rack up double digit Majors against Connors, McEnroe and Borg. Or Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg. Or Sampras and Agassi. Would he be getting to a RG final on slower clay in the 90s with a large number of specialist clay courters about? Would he be getting to Wimbledon finals in the 90s on super fast, low bouncing grass with lots of serve and volleyers around?

He has the ability to, absolutely, but we don't know. His game would likely be different had he been a junior in the 80s or 90s, as he would shape it to the tour of the time. It is the sort of thing that makes comparison across tennis eras difficult but fun to discuss. It is hard to imagine Rafa winning Wimbledon if the grass never changed. It is hard to imagine Ivan Lendl not winning Wimbledon in his day if it was today's grass. But Rafa is a 2-time Wimbledon champion and Lendl is not.

It is part of what makes Serena's desire to surpass Court's 24 funny to me. Court's 24 include 11 AOs from a time when most of the top seeds didn't travel there and it was basically just Australians. Just like when Sampras wanted to beat Emerson's 12, which he'd won while all the best players were on the pro tour. Tennis' history is fractured and requires nuance when discussing it. But people just want a list with single numbers they can put on a screen and say who has the most. No nuance, just tell me if your number is bigger than their number. Serena knows this, even if her 23 is already more impressive than Court's 24.

Jul 14, 2019 19:23:43 GMT Todd said:

I'll regret this post tomorrow when I'm no longer fuming.

I doubt you will have. Historically, this might be one of the worst losses ever in sports.

It isn't even like Novak was unbelievably clutch. If he had raised his level in the breakers and won them, that would've been one thing. Instead, he just stayed pretty solid and watched as Fed descended into a nervous unforced error machine in each of the three tiebreaks. Then, on the two MPs he faced, he delivered a great return on the first one but only had to make a very, very makeable pass on the second because Federer made the sort of ludicrous approach that he normally reserves for Rafa. Then, at deuce, Fed should still be favourite to see out the game and match, but you just knew that wasn't happening.

Federer could've gotten a 9th Wimbledon and 21st Major, extending the gap from Novak to 6. Instead, Novak now has 5 Wimbledons and is within 4. In the modern world, people just care about the one number and Novak very well may end up with the most now, due to Fed's absolute bottling.

I still think the future will tell us more. Novak and Rafa are the first players in the Open era to not have to deal with great youngsters ready to take their spot when they made it to their late 20s. If that does not continue and become the new norm, then there may be some re-examination of their true greatness and Fed's in being able to actually win some stuff from them when he is half a decade older.

For most people, Novak's legacy has been enhanced by being able to defeat someone like Federer in so many Major semis and finals. And I can see that. But at the same time, people almost mocked prime Federer when he would have "old man" Agassi in the latter stages of competition and still use it for "weak era" arguments. It is just so frustrating to watch an old Federer outplay Novak in many big matches and choke at so many key moments. 4/23 on BPs at the US Open 2015 final stands out in the mind.

Novak has not had to deal with any sort of threat from people younger than them, unlike all other great champions in history (well, Rafa has only really had the one-year younger Novak), and Novak has even had to let old Fed go complete bottlejob against him a few times to win as much as he has. As great as Novak is and as hard as he has worked, it almost feels unfair. Like he has had such tremendous fortune in that regard. On paper, many like to claim he has had the hardest path to gain his numbers of anyone ever, having to so often defeat Rafa and Fed. But from how I have explained it above, I'm not so sure that it is. In a certain way, he may have been one of the more fortunate. Even his great numbers against Rafa in recent years can be seen in the context of Rafa's prime being earlier than his, which it certainly was.

Majors won pre-28 and post-28 (note that Fed and Rafa's numbers are historically great for post-28):
Federer 15 and 5
Nadal 13 and 5
Djokovic 6 and 10

The only person younger than Novak that he has ever actually had to play in a Major final is the perennially injured Del Potro (1 year younger) in the 2018 US Open final. The guy even managed to go AWOL for almost 2 years and the only people that took over from him were Rafa and Fed until he got his head screwed back on. He has just faced no threat at all from anyone younger than him. It is almost ridiculous.

Federer had such an incredible opportunity here. Defeating both Rafa and Novak back-to-back when history tells us there should be no way that he should be able to would have almost certainly cemented him above both historically. Instead, he just added another example of his unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the biggest of matches.

And don't misunderstand me, Federer's success post-2011 can be seen in a similar light to Novak's. He should've been getting beaten way more often by these missing generations too.