Why did Djokovic Usually Out-Clutch Federer? | Mailbag
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лип 2024
- On this week's Mailbag, Gill Gross answers your comments as the 2023 Asian Swing begins. We cover Novak Djokovic's clutch advantage over Roger Federer, Grigor Dimitrov's consistent albeit unspectacular year, Matteo Berrettini's downward trend, Rafael Nadal's comments on the GOAT discussion, WTA performance byes, if Laver Cup is an exhibition or an ATP event and more!
00:00 Intro
01:30 Djokovic vs. Federer Clutchness
08:38 Grigor Dimitrov
13:40 Post-Djokovic Era
15:20 Matteo Berrettini
20:20 2013 vs. 2023 ATP
25:32 Nadal Concedes GOAT
29:04 WTA Performance Byes
33:20 Top 5 Tournaments
37:39 NextGen Player Rundown
42:54 Is Laver Cup Exhibition
Enjoyed the video? Become a member to ensure the long-term future of the channel:
/ @gillgross
Gill Gross provides in-depth ATP tennis analysis. Match breakdowns, draw previews, the latest news, and other tennis insights...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5c3VXnL...
Itunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/m...
Twitter: / gill_gross - Спорт
When Federer had GS and weeks at no1 record he was lauded as a goat by all the fans, media and tennis commentators. Now when Novak has all those records and much more on top of that like(2xgolden masters) there is a question mark and debate if he is really goat, the numbers suddenly dont have the same weight as they did in Federers case. Bunch of hypocrites who just cant get over the fact that some guy from a small unpopular country is goat in the sport for the rich and privileged
Yes- a tennis player from the Balkans- Serbia is not supposed to be the best player in the world. It is bigotry , once again, raising its ugly head.
@@sandranastiaNovak is pure Class ❤
@@nixiontm So does that make Novak better? No that’s just your personal opinion. Facts are Roger is light years ahead of Novak in terms of popularity. I just don’t think it has to do with race like the original post suggests? I actually think people relate more to Roger for one reason or another. I’m not gonna get into the specifics, but clearly it’s true cause his popularity speaks for itself.
Djokovic fans and their inferiority complex.
It will never die, I suppose.
Roger still living rent free in Novak fans heads! I mean you guys need to move on and let Roger live!
Novak adapted and keeps on adapting his game..thats the difference I think over time he became better and better by facing his weak areas n working on it
I remember seeing an interview with Roger a while back, where the interviewer asked him how he worked on his weaknesses. Roger’s answer was that he just preferred working on his strengths. I believe this was before Novak started ascending in 2011 but he was losing to Rafa quite a bit. As a fan of his I was a little disappointed with that answer but I think Roger didn’t like the grind of working on weaknesses. Novak and Rafa kept improving while Roger stayed with the same game and game plan for a long time. I think this cost him in some of those big matches with Novak and Rafa.
Federer changed his racket size, he majorly improved his backhand to turn the tables on Nadal…Federer improved too….Nadal improved his backhand down the line to beat Djokovic…etc Thebig 3 all have improved so much to stay relevant. Where Djoko stands out is lack of injuries.
Remember when Novak Djokovic started playing everyone loved his impersonations , antics and jokes . Once he started beating fedals regularly he was not loved anymore 😅😅😅 .
I am a Federer fan but i love Novak and i love his impersonations. I wish he would do it even now especially with the new generation of players. In fact i do watch some old videos of his impersonations sometimes. I think it’s important to not generalise. Every fan base has haters who will hate the other player no matter what. We can’t really do anything about it
Actually so true. 😂
Roddick rafa and roger were so bu88hurt that they had to attack and blow novak's retirements way out of proportion.
Sore losers then.. They r sore losers to this day too 😂🤣
_40-15 2019 Wimbledon_ was just *devastating!* It is true. Federer admitted that he cried after that defeat.
Can't imagine Djokovic ever losing from a 40-15 position to Fed. And we also have the NYC defeats holding match point.
Don't know if it is Djokovic's "clutchiness" or Fed choking.
It may just simply be a matter that Djokovic is the better player and the better players just find a way to win. 🎾
Yep or as we say in Wales all in the noggin butt. Jokes aside you might be right If I were Roger is say Novak is goat....
watch the 40-15 point again - someone in the crowd (probably planted by Novaks team) called out during Roger's ball toss for the serve. It was going to be a cold ace down the middle, with Novak incorrectly going out wide. The ball hit the tape.
@@steinanderson9849 a fedalista accusing the crowd not rooting for federer 😂😂😂. So cringe lol
@@steinanderson9849😂😂😂 fans disturbed novak the whole match and you are crying about 1 point
You’re right that Novak wouldn’t lose with two Championship points ON HIS RACQUET. Novak is not a loser.
Regarding the Rafa comments Novak question... the user asking that question was referring to Rafa's comments from the Movistar interview, not the comments he gave to AS. You know, the one about Novak's "frustration" if he hadn't won the GS race.
Gill dodged it nicely 😂
If you look at the 3 matches that Novak came back to beat Federer from 2 match points down, you will see that styles had nothing to do with it. At the 2010 US Open Novak hit 3 unbelievable winners in a row ( All 3 on the line or within a few inches). which is not exactly playing it safe. on his own serve. (Novak's serve was only solid back then. Not as good as it is today. Today he can hit an ace with 115 MPH)
The following year US Open semi final on Federer's serve Novak knew Federer was going wide and returned a winner. The next 5 points were 2 unforced errors by Federer, trying to go for a winner with the first of the 2 hitting the top of the net before sailing wide. He then followed it up with an ace, then a relatively easy forehand into the net, followed by a double fault.
At the 2019 Wimbledon finals again on Federer's serve Roger served 2 aces in a row to go up 40-15 then he missed the 1st serve and Novak hit a perfect return to Roger's body causing him to miss a forehand wide. At 40-30 Federer did not go for a winner but instead tried to rush the net and Novak hit a perfect shot by Federer. The next 2 points Novak pretty much hit a winner with Federer barely able to get to the ball and he outlasted Federer in anybody's point exchange with Roger hitting the net.
It was really a combination of Novak hitting unbelievable shots and Federer making some unforced errors, some of which were the result of great returns by Djokovic. Style had nothing to do with Novak hitting 4 winners cross court down the line or Novak returning the ball perfectly to Federer's feet , giving him no time to set up for a forehand return to maintain the upper hand in the point.
If you breakdown the 15 or so points that decided those 3 games you will see that actually Novak went for winners more often than Federer, especially at the 2010 US Open.
At the 2019 Wimbledon final Novak did appear to go into lock down mode in the game he broke back and every tie breaker in the match. What many people forget is Novak had the break in the 5th set . Roger broke back and then broke Novak again before Novak broke back.
Thank you for this! The style analysis in the video didn't sound precise and correct because of the starting generalizations.
Very well put, I think you are a better analyst than Gill Gross.
Nonsense. When a player plays 98% safe and 2% goes for winners and wins a match he still relies on his consistency.
@@sidmeerut417 haha
Federer hit twice as many winners in 2019 than Novak, in their final. there's no question Federer's shot-making was superior, but it is riskier, especially on slowed courts with long points (favours the baseliner). isolated points tell us how it ended, they don't tell us about the aggregate shape of the match
I once read a part from Rogers Biography which was written before 2010 where he mentioned that he would get super nervous when it came down to closing up big matches and was desperately hoping for a mistake from Mark Philipoussis in his first Slam Final. This explains it all to me why he failed so many times to win big matches after having match points, it is no coincidence he lost THREE times to Novak that way and also against Hewitt at the Davis Cup 2003, Nadal in Rome 2006, Safin at the Australian Open 2005!
It really comes down to bad strategy ultimately. Fed should have just gone all out on those big points, only way to beat a clutch player like Novak or other players who swing with nothing to lose in those moments, must take the match not expect to receive it. Obviously try to get balls in play in but attack-- it's sad watching those points where he just gets passive and doesn't fully go for it, but a good lesson for other players not to let up before the final victory. Novak is great at that, too.
@@TimelyAdventure yes but that's the thing, when you get too nervous it hinders you from thinking logically
@@rustamghafari9585 true but I think he could have just had a game plan as simple as go for it on the big points, like Novak did, like Sampras and Agassi did, it’s sad to see him shrink like that, like hoping the opponent misses, but yeah nerves are crazy and can only imagine what it’s like at that level
Djokovic, the GOAT .
🤓
Only in you wet dream.
Novax fans are insecure
@@punns643no, the are realistic…he is the goat by a big margin.
Novak fans are alpha males
Roger fans are betaboys
yeah right coming from FEDAL fans@@punns643
It's funny that Gill's channel is basically great for everything tennis except the GOAT debate. Probably by design as to not alienate a segment of fans.
What’s so urgent or important about this debate? Assuming you’re a Novak fan because seems like you just trying to push it anywhere all the time. We get it, he is the best. He is the 🐐. Do we really need to have it as a discussion on every platform?
@@ranrabi9381he is the goat 🐐
Good point.
What else you expect from a politically correct liberal?
@@ranrabi9381 lol you can say that again pal 😂
That Fed/Djo analysis was insightful. Well done 👍🏾
Can't blame Roger fans, in the last decade they only watched Roger win 3 slams whilst Novak won 3 slams in 2023 alone 😂
I've come across a few and they're so butt-hurt that it's hilarious to see their reactions. I usually root for underdogs; but Novak has become my perpetual underdog now; especially since 2020 when the tennis establishment went overdrive to sabotage his bull-run. Novak forever!
Why is Djokovic better than Federer when we all agreed that 40-15 guy should be better.All 'fans' ,money grabbing ATP CEOs,PR teams,Ben Rotenberg we all agreed and just bcs Djokovic plays better he is somehow GOAT. Its not fer.
"whilst Novak won 3 slams in 2023 alone"
Roddick and Safin have more GS combined than what Djokovic has had to face in 8/23 GS finals Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Kevin Anderson, Berrettini and Ruud. Weak gen confirmed
@@BOZ_11 Djokovic played in the era where 2 players combined have 42 slams, Nadal and Roger and you want to compare that to Safin and Roddick with 3 slams combined 😂🤣😂
@@moer20078 i compare Safin, Roddick and Hewitt to the people Novak is playing in major finals, since 2020
As much as I love Federer's single-handed backhand, I sincerely believe that it was his weakest shot and prone to breakdowns under stressful situations; who's better than inducing stress in his opponents than Djokovic? At this point in life, it has become Federer's biggest regret. No wonder he's pushing all four of his children to use double-handed backhands.
it's only a liability when the courts are like molasses. if the courts are sped up in the future (or more likely, faster balls) Fed's game becomes the #1 style, again
@@BOZ_11 while speeding up courts does help Federer somewhat, I still believe that a guy like Djokovic will still have an edge. When his timing is off, Federer is prone to shanking on his backhands.
@@sainellore6874 Fed only started shanking in his 30s. look at 2019. Djoko and Fed were even on grass, then 2 months later, on a much faster indoor hard court, Fed cleans his clock at the World Tour Finals
Federer's backhand = error prone
tell me you don't know much about tennis without telling me you don't know much about tennis. he had one of the greatest one hander backhands ever. there was only one bad match up for him - Nadal high bouncing top spin forehand into his backhand. which he eventually overcame with a larger racquet and taking the ball earlier.
I'm tempted to say that what transpired at that 2011 US Open when Djokovic was down double matchpoint is the most terrifying thing I've ever seen in my decades of playing and watching tennis.
Facts. That moment has such an aura to it. Like watching a movie, except it's real
@@jeremyneiderhoffyeah
@@jeremyneiderhoff Or like something out of Ancient Greek Myth.
Nothing special…just Novak being an alpha male, something Roger knows nothing about.
@@michaelgarza8271 same with wimby 2019. doesn't feel like you're watching a tennis match, or even a sport. just a battle between good and evil
Tsitsipas is the new Dmitrov. Sadly difficult to continue to support even though I desperately want to do so.
Note, Dmitrov beat Big Black Foe like a drum recently in Wimby I think.
Tsitsipas is the new Berdych. Felix is the new Dimitrov.
Regarding Fed - in tight matches there were a few things that stood out - can’t take advantage of break chances and can’t buy a first serve when he needs it (which used to bail Sampras out). There must have been a dozen Nadal matches where he’d be like 2 for 15 converting break points
In Roger's first five Slam finals, he lost one set. That's amazing. But...I've always had the idea that this hurt him a little, too. He kind of missed out on the seasoning under REAL pressure he might otherwise have got, like Novak and especially Rafa did pretty much did from the beginning of their careers, where they had to learn how to win pressure points all the time. Roger was just way, way better than everyone else, and his talent always got him across the line, until those two guys showed up and made life difficult for him. He of course was clutch a million times in his career too - but maybe that gene was never quite as developed as it might have been.
Interesting argument. But I think Gill's arguments are more accurate here. And Roger was not even 25 when Rafa first challenged him at slams. So he head a lot of time to learn how to play under constant pressure.
You gotta point it was too easy for him first 12 slams, everything won with ease. He didnt learn to play under pressure. Novak and rafa are different in that department. When he got them as real rivalls ,..he just couldnt raise under pressure. He didnt learn to cope with hard tough matches, it was all easy to him,..those two giants evolved and that was it for him...He still did win, 50 more titles, but not the biggest ones. as is seen in big titles race, he is third on the list.
@@nikolakostic1310He has lost dozens of matches having matchpoints, the pinnacle is the uso11. I really dont understand why he hasn’t improved in this regard.
It's all to do with upbringing in my opinion. Djokovic was caught up in the middle of a war when he was a child and witnessed bombs being dropped on his city, and probably wasn't sure if he was going to make it out alive or not. Whereas Federer is part of Swiss royalty and had a very easy life and never had to face much adversity. That is why Djokovic was able to cope under pressure way better than Federer was.
Agreed. Style has less to do with it, although that also was a factor.
I was in Belgrade during the bombing - it wasn't that horrible
@@nikolic-sq5rx interesting - so it seems style perhaps is the most important factor?
Not just that. He's had ppl mocking and doubting him from day one. Ppl thought he was delusional when he said he could be the best and the media skewered him for it. So he used that negativity to work his ass off and fuel his desire to be the best and it worked. Sometimes success is the best revenge.
@nikolic-sq5rx really ? I have not heard anyone else say that. Perhaps the cluster bombs used by NATO were not detonated near you. Perhaps you were not a child at the time? Perhaps you were in a steel -enforced dungeon? Perhaps , you do not know what you are talking about? I rather think it is the latter. Cheers 🍻
The final head-to-head between the two was 27-23 for Novak! It's basically the same situation with Novak & Rafa(30-29 Novak) and Rafa & Rog(24-16-Rafa)! Rafa's clay dominance gave him a little gap in their head-to-head, but all 3 could beat the other's on any given night! We will long for the days when we were able to witness these 3 give battle!
I’d even add that the Federer vs Djokovic H2H is even closer than 27-23 indicates. I mean, if Federer won 3 more points, he would be leading 26-24. Almost all of their matches have been competitive, they’ve been equal on basically every surface, Djokovic has just had the slightest edge.
27-23 is very close especially if you consider the nimber of times Federer was better clearly or had matchpoint and then didn’t some blunders. At least 2,3 occasions were like this. And even 2 of all those would make it 25-25.
So very close rivalry and Fed was 37 when Djok 31 (and Fed was not the discipline guy who takes great care to play play competitively till 45. And when Fed was 23,24 Djokovic did notmplay Fed.
Guys, it is not even close. If our Roger won all 27 matches that he lost (and we know he is capable) he would be 50:0 vs Novak. So Roger 30+ GS and Nole maybe 10+.
@@Pejatube😂
head to head was 74-73 sets to Roger, Roger could wipe the court with Novax, but Novax didn't have the ability to wipe the court with Roger.
37:25 Don’t forget the Nadal vs Berdych quarterfinal! In my opinion, that was the second best match of the tournament (AO2012). Hot take for sure, but the ball-striking was peak, Nadal was super clutch and running around like a madman, and his level in the last two sets was insane. Up on the baseline, blasting return winners. It was a perfect adjustment to how hard Berdych was hitting and dictating points early on.
But yeah, both SFs were A+ and then the final was maybe the greatest match of all time with Wimbledon 2008.
Wimbledon 2019 and Us Open 2011 plus French Open 2013 are up there with greatest matches of all time. I think Wimbledon 2019 is def most important match of all time if not the greatest. Novak Rafa FO 2021 semi 3rd set was greatest set of all time.
Also Wimbledon 2018 might low key is easily top 5 match Ever. Maybe too 3. So quality.only non big 3 match is prob Lendl McEnroe legendary final
@@HardNigga-tr4uyI don’t think Wimbledon 2019 is up there, and I know it’s a hot take. But I remember the quality being pretty poor for the whole second set and most of the 4th. The fifth set was spectacular but didn’t make up for the rest of it. Great, epic match, one of the most important in tennis history, and maybe a top 10-15 match, but I wouldn’t put it in the top 5. And keep in mind I’m a Nadal fan, so the 40-15 isn’t affecting my judgement lol.
RG2013 fifth set was fantastic, but it has the same problem with Wimbledon 2019. Inconsistent quality. Third set was a Nadal 6-1 blowout, 4th set was weirdly back and forth. That match gets heavily carried by the 9-7 fifth set, although it was a glorious set and imo a top 3 set they’ve ever played. Well, maybe top 5 because AO2012 had some great ones too.
US Open 2011 was better quality, but I feel like the conclusion to it was very underwhelming. After Djokovic’s god return, Federer basically stopped playing. He double faulted on break point and did not win another game. If he had put up more resistance it could’ve been more epic. Also the 3rd and 4th sets were relatively one-sided if I remember correctly. I would need a rewatch of this though.
The best Federer/Djokovic match is by far Wimbledon 2014. That’s a real contender for the all-time great matches. It was super high quality with barely any unforced errors, but it gets glossed over often in favor of US Open 2011 and Wimbledon 2019 for whatever reason. RG 2011 would be my #2, and it would be #1 if it went 5 sets.
I agree on Wimbledon 2018. It’s a bit underrated, but both players were blasting winners left and right. I thought Nadal played as well as he could outside of his 2018 serve being putrid. Every set was high quality, and the 3rd and 5th were outstanding.
Yeah USO 2011 or RG2021 3rd sets are probably the greatest. USO2011 had some of the greatest rallies of all time, but at the same time I think the quality was only really high because both Nadal and Djokovic were serving like WTA players. I think both were fatigued from the collective stress on their bodies from playing so much tennis in 2011. Still, the atmosphere was insane and their athleticism was ridiculous. RG2021 3rd set was a masterclass, although Nadal’s backhand really let him down and put him on the back foot consistently besides the one stretch from 4-5 (Djokovic serving) until 6-5 where he got the set point. That was the moment where you felt like Nadal could get the magical set steal but it wasn’t meant to be.
@@SJ-di5zuPersonally in terms of quality, Wimby 08 and 19 isn’t up there. Even Wimby 07 is better imo. I do agree semifinals and finals USO11 AO12 and Wimby 18, 14 final are high quality.
Personally RG13 Nadal played the highest quality when it’s most needed, I think even without the net touch Nadal still would beat him, I was surprised by the resilience of Djokovic in that 4 set. Exactly the same for Wimby 14 and AO 12, the better player clutched it out.
Federer was out of his prime only when he was losing to Nole , his age wasn’t a problem when he was beating players to make semis or finals of slams , win masters 1000 or any other tournament but as soon as he loses to Novak the age is the best excuse for his losses 😅😅😅
The answer is vey simple….
Novak has a Tesla brain and Serbian balls, two things Roger is lacking
Supports violent Serbian nationalists too lol
How can you compare Djokovic with Sampras or Borg ?? Sampras was an absolute dud on clay and he won just 11 masters in his whole career. Borg on the other hand wasn't able to win even the US open. There are some of his sympathisers and Novak's detractors who claim that if Borg hadn't retired prematurely at 26 he was destined for more glory . But the fact is that Borg left Tennis not due to any debilitating injury or a fatal accident; he left tennis oniy because he was bored with tennis and had more important things to do in his life; these are his own words. So, how can a man who was so much disinterested and bored with tennis even be in contention for the sobriquet of GOAT ?? He did return to tour betraying his own words and faced a major embarrassment not able to win even a single match since he was so obdurate and refused to be malleable with the requirements of modern tennis.
By such legitimate elimination, only Laver becomes eligible to be compared with Novak. But those times Laver played the game was so much different from the present, that it is very hard to make any contextual or factual comparison.
I don't think Sampras or Borg have a GOAT case. I understand why you think I was saying that, but that actually wasn't my point.
@@GillGrossThanks for your clarification.
Sampras was the YE no1 for 6 years straight. What Borg did was amazing.
@@NamTran-xc2ip Novak is head and shoulders above them.
@@michael8597 Lol, you can't compare eras like that. Borg' volleys, serve, shotmaking and overhead is head and shoulders above Novak
For the Laver Cup Monfils FAA argument, I’ll just defend FAA (since I already agree with everything Gill said to defend Monfils). FAA was on Team World, who took the event super seriously and wanted the win for their pride (and I love that about them). FAA played last year where Team World had a chip on their shoulders because all the talk was about “big 4” and “Fed’s retirement.” They wanted that win so bad, and so did Europe. So for FAA to be taking these matches seriously, talking strategy, and then look across the net and see Monfils clowning around like it’s a charity match (in his first Laver Cup), I think the inner competitor in any athlete would have to kick in. I’m here for a real, serious match, and this guy is just messing around??
I thought both players handled it maturely though, with Monfils apologizing to FAA and FAA accepting it and moving on. I agreed with Shelton’s take too, where he told FAA not to even look at what Monfils was doing, don’t worry about how seriously he’s taking it, if he wants to hand you the win, just take it. That’s the correct way to go about it and allowed FAA to set the tone for the blowout win.
I hope World never changes. I love how McEnroe instills that fire into the team and makes them have that underdog mentality.
The Laver Cup will never hit the level of The Ryder Cup, but to the point of there being nothing wrong with it being an exhibition.The Ryder Cup is an exhibition, no prize money and no ranking points at stake. Laver Cup should effectively remain the same and that's great, just give us something different with it in match ups. Who wouldn't want to see Tsitsipas and Medvedev play doubles together for team Europe? You can guarantee you won't see that on the ATP Tour.
Thanx Gill. Top Notch analysis as usual. The Novak-Roger H2H was fascinating. There seems to be a point in some of these matches that I've entirely watched where it seems Nole goes into kind-of a 'Joe Montana-esque' mindset in just intensley-yet enjoyably just going for it - almost from this 'other-wordly' like place when he just hits these almost impossible winners at critical moments. Love the analysis on this part of the mailbag. Again, many thanx. Best, Milan
Great comment about Monfis, Gill! Exactly - An Exhibition! AA needs to take a chill pill! Do his best, but put up with the antics, maybe let his hair down and try a few trick shots himself.
Gill didn't bother to watch Laver Cup in full when it aired & is trolling y'all for easy views taking a lazy position using a timely topic. Commentary on commentary leading to a misreading. It's Pale Fire up in here y'all! The internet is wild.
@@got2bjosh fair enough, however I watched a lot of it and agree with his view. It was a very weak Europe, but awesome to see the US players all doing well. These are only viewpoints….. I understand some of AA’s frustrations- however let’s not pretend it’s a tour event. Nice to having an event not needing to abide by all the rules.
Yep. Without playing a 3rd set and lacking the best players, Laver Cup is a meaningless exhibition that has no merit. Scrubs like Shelton are actually made to look good.
Classic comment! Ben did play well and doesn’t he make a lot of noise about himself!
Question is "why was roger a chokerer but djokovic not chokovic?"
Answer is simple. Roger was pampered in against mediocre opposition early on but when real opposition turned up, he had no answers. But nole was moulded and battle tested both on an off court real life.
delusional Noletards are hilarious😂
you know that what you said is insulting to Tennis as a game and to Joker too.
no wonder the game has gone backward.
That is a truly valid point.
When the real opposition turned up his back was already fucked and when Djokovic turned up Federer was already 30
@@antonlevin1425 Federer was 26 when Novak hauled him in Australian open 2008. He was 28 and 29 when Novak cleaned him in US open 2010 and 2011. LoL 😆😆😆
This age constraint is a silly excuse often flagged by fanboys of Fedérer. Connors was 9 years older than Mcenroe and 5 years older than Borg. But such age issue never cropped up. Becker was 5 years older than Sampras.
@@michael8597 check the dates of US OPEN 2011 and then Fed's birthday.
And it seems you're conflating the 2 points I made
Björn Borg had 11 GS titles at the age of 25. I wonder how many he would have won if he'd stayed in the game.
Roger lacks cojones......! he never grew a set, and it showed in big moments. monumental collapse after collapse against Nadal an Novak, especially Novak...........that's why Fed could never, ever be considered the goat.. Nole is the one and has proven it time after time.
to bad he's like watching paint dry
Mirka has a big pair
1-djokovic 2 nadal😢😢 3.federer. I cry every night in my bed with my pinky tanga slip😢😢😢 ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu😢
Same comment every post. How sad are you, acting like a Nadal fan
Well at least you admit it and are not in denial, so that is a feather in your cap 👊
No it is not like that.
Where's the real Goldwolf? We want the real one, not this impostor! Boo
There is no need to cry too much, for Djokovic has saved tennis from one of its greatest tragedies:
A clay-court specialist ending up with the most grand slams in the history of men's tennis.
Maybe one day you could speak about the fact that Nadal did not win a set in 9 matches against Djokovic on hard court since 2013, after US Open and could not win in this period, decade more precisely, win one single match outside clay. Against Federer it is nearly the same, last win outside clay dated AO 2014, since then no win on hard court/grass. Pretty embarrasing for Nadal. Conclusion: for about a decade Nadal has not been a rival neither for Djokovic nor for Federer outside clay. Nadal knows this, which is the reason that he even avoided matches against the two on hard court. To call the rivalry between Djokovic and Nadal the biggest in tennis history sounds absurd for me, the rivalry between Federer and Djokovic has been far bigger.
Gill vs Dmitri was absolutely hilarious. So funny the idea that some guy in the top 100 atm who can hit a 90mph passing shot with a poly racket deserves more credit than Edberg because Edberg couldn’t do that stuff in the late 80s
Gill you answer on the era’s question was masterful. Kudos to you sir
I was around for the Sampras Agassi matches and I can’t remember anyone ever thinking Andre choked, Pete just had bigger weapons. Feels like Roger choked a few of those big matches against Novak away. Also, Sampras had a simple game, serve and volley, when playing the baseline look to get to net. He always knew what he was going to do on the biggest points, didn’t have to think on those, and his incredible serve bailed him out numerous times. Same with Djoker as to his incredible return bailing him out plus he knows what to do and doesn’t deviate much from his typical aggressive grinder and takes on rise and move opponent, knows exactly what he will do and doesn’t need to think about what to do. Roger and I think Alcaraz have so many shots they can hit that at tight moments not having a sure fire go to weapon and not having to think at all is harder because the pressure like you say does affect the consistency of flashy shotmaking characteristic of Fed and Carlitos and being unsure of which of the many shots to hit will cause potential passiveness, errors, or getting in one’s head.
Federer peaked at a different era. By the time he turned 30 he was beat by peak Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. At his peak he dominated with a smaller racket and was quick enough to run around his backhand.
Beijing has been absolutely insane. The draw is so stacked, three setters & tiebreakers abound in the early rounds. It seems like a bad bouncing ball not to have you delivering content addressing & reacting to some of these fierce battles on court.
The organizers want to give more chance for Chinese players after 3 years.
And most importantly, crowd wasn't as biased as in other tournaments. Rooting for every player equally.
Hey Gill,
I was just catching up on Davidovich Fokina vs. Zverev in Beijing. Davidovich Fokina's game and build look eerily similar to Nalbandian's (neat all round game but unfulfilled career). Do you feel he will ever break into the truly top tier, or do you feel he will stay a shot-making maverick?
Fokina shots are much lower than Nalbadian in every aspects.
@@buitho439 now I think of it, you are spot on. His backhand cross looks a bullet. He kept Zverev off balance.
@@saqibjohri5761 Nalbadian's backhand was incredible particularly in Shanghai 2005 and Madrid Masters 2007.
@@buitho439 that time was bittersweet for a tennis enthusiast. Someone who hounded Fed in juniors was about to go toe to toe with him. Alas, it was a flash in the pan.
The biggest difference is - Fed was undisputed and had no real threat while being on top for a while early on. That hurt him because he did not evolve while Rafa and Nole adapted, especially Novak, who's game constantly improved. By 2011 he was a beast.
Cheering for Roger Federer really was a religious experience. His fans didn’t mind that what they were told (that Roger was GOAT) was make-believe. They bought it no matter Roger’s losing record to Rafael Nadal. But it should have been unbelievable when Roger also lost big match after big match to Novak Djokovic: 2010 US Open, 2011 US Open, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2019 Wimbledon.
Tennis fans can’t think about Roger Federer without thinking about the 2010 and 2011 US Opens and especially the 2019 Wimbledon. Each of those crowds was 95/5 RF.
Imagine your favorite player has double match points and chokes not once, not twice, but three times! In two of those three matches, Roger had the match points on his racquet!
Then imagine trying to claim your guy belongs in the GOAT conversation alongside the man who rescued all those match points. -->
Excellent points about FAA and Monfils! Love to you, Gil!
If I can use an attribute to summarize Djokovic's game, it's probably reliability. He can rely on his groundstrokes for defense and offense relatively equally. He can rely on his movement and balance. He can rely on his serve and return. When you have a lot of things to cushion yourself like that, it's going to be pretty hard to break you.
Currently, I'd say if you're struggling to put Djokovic on defense and stretch it, you'll very likely lose.
For me its about patterns, federer is more like play in the flow dont think too much and novak is totally opposite, so in big moment federer would go for some pattern and novak was aware
That is actually true. Djokovic said recently about Federer “I knew that in big moments such as match points or break point he (Roger) would always serve wide. I dont know why he did that, but I knew he would and I was always expecting it” and he added through smile “I can say that now” (since Roger retired). I think Novak studied his game very much so, and he picked this patterns
@@Nash-NYC It might not easy to settle down match point against Rafa or Novak by an Ace shot therefore Roger normally wants to serve wide and plus one by volley or big forehand. That's what I guessed about his tactic.
Apart from mental.. Roger had a backhand weakness that top top players (big 3 plus murray delpo nalbandian and few others) exploited.
Roger is a better Tsitsipas. 🤷♂️
No man, not even close. The only time federer had backhand problems was against nadal due to that ridiculous topspin. Against everybody else, novak included, it was a deadly weapon. Novak's advantage over federer was his shot tolerance and control from neutral.
It's like saying Novak is a better Nishikori or Sinner.🙃
@@ericzhong5863 And Coric.
@@Infinityflow0 watch some of murray vs roger matches.
Andy had positive h2h against roger until 2011 for a reason and tats attacking roger's backhand and get slices back when he is tired or short ball to wipe it off 🤷♂️
Why did Djokovic out-clutch Federer? Simply bcos he's much stronger mentally. If Federer had Djoko's mental strength, he'd have 40 grand slams, as purely in terms of tennis he was in a different universe.
I agree completely.
This is such BS thing to say about sports lol
If If If Djokovic had Federer’s best tennis attributes, he would have won 100 grand slams!
@@AggyokoYes, it's also true that if Nole had Federer's game, he'd be even more dominant. Smart people can visualize and speak hypothetically an ability which dumb people lack.
If Kyrgios had the best aspects of Djokovic and Michael Jordan he would have won 30 tennis slams and 10 nba rings!
I actually disagree with the effect of nerves on movement, while I do agree that shotmaking mistakes happen more when you’re nervous I’ve noticed that every time I get nervous I start to cramp. I’ve played longer matches where I’ve never cramped but if I’m not in the right headspace I’ll start to cramp thus affecting my movement.
Hello Gil, thanks for what you do. It’s been nothing but illuminating for a new tennis fanatic as my self. I’m very curious about your take on the unprecedented hatred towards Novak. It’s an unparalleled phenomenon - nowhere in other sports exists a Great with so much hatred going his/her way. I’ve had numerous conversations (once with McEnroe at a party actually - I had to approach him!) about this subject and I’m super curious as to how you see it. I’ve concluded that there is a group of people that I call Novak haters: they are most often than not fed-Rafa fans and they tend to see all of novak’s actions as “bad” - the most recent being the phone hang up, the one before that his stance on the vaccine, the one before that his impersonations of players back in the day (which I loved when was thrown at me for one of the reasons because it helped me make my point which was): I feel like whatever people didn’t like about Novak (those reasons above, plus the screaming, the tearing of the shirt, the breaking of the racquets (I’m just listing the explanations I’ve been told) it seems most people have come around to accepting him with the, now, context of his achievements. The most supportive example of this argument being in this year’s US open, the crowd asked him to make impersonations. So what do you think? Is it as simple as “these guys just don’t like him because of the threat to nadal and fereder’s legacy? I just can’t find another way to explain this. And I’ve failed to have any of the haters describe any legitimate reason to hating the guy. I hope this isn’t a subject you’ve covered in the past - I’ve only been following for the last 3 years. Dude, I’ve sent your name to all the people that got me into tennis and they are all impressed with what you do! Thank you. Pali.
When you’re the best returner in the history of the game, it makes a server think that little bit more about where they’re going on key point. That’s what Novak has. He’s improved his forehand massively in the last 10 years and that more than his backhand is a massive weapon now. He’s gotten rid of weaknesses in his game. For the Fed matches etc, if you hold match points it proves you can win, it really does, that said there’s no draws in Tennis which is what makes the sport so great and you can only win by winning that very last point and that’s where Novak is so good, he can compartmentalise the match point scenario down to “ it’s just a point and can focus on the small parts. Both players are clutch, Federer is a more talented player no doubt but Novak is the slightly better big point player, that’s all it takes at that
38 year old Federer was one point away from beating Djokovic in the Wimby final. People forget Federer is literally one generation older than Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. There are very few people in the younger generations who can challenge Djokovic right now.
Laver cup should be fan voting, like nba All star game (with some prerequirements like being in the top 100 or having won a big title in your career). Its all about fun but you need fan favourites to have fun.
Fed lacked killer instinct, which especially showed against his biggest rivals.
Too much of a level-headed gentleman living a good life. Needed some damage in his background to fuel the desire to triumph over rivals as if their success was a personal attack. Serve Chthonic justice on the court & Ouranic justice off it. Every match is Oresteic.
What the actual fuck? How do you stay number 1 for 5 years in a row, make 23 slam straight semifinals, make 30+ slam finals, win over 1200 matches and win 20 slams and not have a killer instinct?
I swear people on the internet just throw darts randomly at a wall without thinking...
@@samy29987 The field was weaker when Federer was at his most dominant. Then came the other two F&D who were real sharks & more brutal in their willingness to break down an opponent however possible. Federer was almost too civilized for his own good. He still thought everyone played by the same gentlemanly rules. You-Know-Who wanted to break his opponent's psychologically, Nadal wanted to break his down physically, & Federer just wanted to play each point the best. He played without the killer motive & was thusly slain.
@@got2bjosh Oh, I see. Another "Federer played in a weak era" believer. I'm not even gonna continue the argument. Believe what you want then.
@@samy29987 Post 90s but pre-arrival of N&D in the late '00s and early '10s, the field was more open for Federer to dominate. Agassi was the last great American male tennis player & he retired in '06 during peak Federer (2004-2008). Roddick never came close to Agassi or Fed. Nor did any of the players from that transitional era between the faster courts of the 90s & the slower courts during the Big 3. No one is saying Federer wasn't exceptional, but you see how things slowly changed with more competition from more equally matched opponents in N&D.
sometimes theoretically you would need to beat three, but you wouldn't remember because not many people can get pass two which berdychdid in 2010
Shot making vs movement? What are you saying?
Tennis is making the shot ON the move. Joker does it better. Fixed it for you.
Can you comment on suede shoe comfort? Aquazzura shoes are beautiful and so comfy (85mm not 105). Thank you.
I think that AO2017 was super interesting memorable. People were expecting Murray and Djokovic to dominate, but they both lost early which cracked open the draw. Then, Fed and Nadal each had amazing comebacks after their injuries. The Semis and finals were all amazing. Great storylines and some great matches.
Good points. I believe Federer won 3 consecutive 5 set matches to take the title. I would put FO 09 and 21 in there as well. Soderling's upset of Nadal and Federers come from behind victories against both Tommy Haas and Del Potro to winning his first French Open, making the 09 French very memorable. The FO 21 featured a 0-2 comeback against Musetti, a memorable victory against Nadal and a 0-2 comeback in the final.
As long as they keep counting Laver cup matches in the official h2hs, the event is going to have a bad taste in my mouth.
Yep. Without playing a 3rd set and lacking the best players, Laver Cup is a meaningless exhibition that has no merit. Scrubs like Shelton are actually made to look good.
If there were 2 slams on Clay, or many more Clay tournaments in general, it doesn't necessarily mean that Nadal would be as dominant as he is right now. More clay tournaments mean more players will be practicing and playing more on that surface. There is a reason no one says Hard Court Specialist because most courts are hardcourts, if most courts are clay, everyone would be a tougher competition as most play on that surface. Being the best on the surface most players practice and compete, is a major deal for Djokovic though
da baba ima muda bila bi deda
I think Nadal would he 25 clay slams
Yep. Nadal vultered many titles in a very weak clay era.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Not really his problem if his ‘rivals’ were so weak
I think you understood the question wrong about 1 slam winners...You have 1 slam winners also when there is someone dominant at the top and the rest pick up the scraps 1 at a time - like Cilic, Thiem, Medvedev, Del Potro. I think there will continue to be 1 slam winners on the men's side during Djokovic and after Djokovic (A.D).
Assuming that Federer would have won the finals in the events where he lost in the semis after holding a match point, he was only four points away from four more slams, and Novak would have three less (and Safin would have one less). Fed would have had 24 and Novak 21 if four points went the other way.
For me Laver Cup makes no sense...
...I didn't watch it, I have no interest in watching it.
It's an exhibition game with no meaning, other than actually counting as a head to head - which makes no sense!
Maybe Americans do care because of McEnroe. Maybe there's some connection to Ryder Cup. But probably more to do with guaranteed attendance money, especially if one didn't do so well in the US Open. It's a nice backup plan.
Looking at the 3rd day program this year shows me what a farce this tournament is. Doubles is always scheduled last for first 2 days, except on the 3rd where it is scheduled first.
Haha, the players' managers are thinking hopefully it is all over by then and their players don't have to play.
Personally, I think the format should replace the Next Generation Final at the end of the year. Make it a competition for the best of the younger players, and let the older generations shape, mentor and guide them in a team environment going forward. Then head to head also makes sense. These players are vying for attention, sponsorship backing.
Post keeps on moving..if you're a hater
Djokovic out clutch Federer because Djokovic is the goat.. he don’t choke like Federer..
the coaching part doesn't make sense because I always consider Davis Cup matches an important part of the H2H
Why didn't Federer develop his game/ strategy to compete with Djokovic post 2011 the way Djokovic started to do around 2009/2010 ( when he changed his diet etc. )
Its bcos he thought he would always be on top and also bcos he didn't have the ability to de-construct himself and put himself back together in an even better way ( the way Djokovic did )
And also, he knew he cannot change his mental make-up. He knew he had to rely even more on _only his shot making ability and natural God given tennis skills_ which are incredible in their own right.
However, the combination of Federer relying more on his shot making ( less reliance/focus on mental endurance/ training ) and Djokovic increasing in this department made their rivalry one sided for Djokovic ( regardless of who was prime when etc. )
The thing is Roger is the perfect example of a transitional player who grew up in the era of Sampras and the in the world of net game and serve and volley...
Roger had to change and adapt his game later on because of how good baseliners had become... Rafa for one had a winning h2h against Roger during this period... and here comes Novak..
Novak and Rafa also had to adapt to the changes and Novak by far had the most glaring difference in terms of improvement and adaptation.
Players in the Top20-30 TODAY could potentially upset a top player in the likes of Rafa (in recent years) even Roger in rare cases when he was active, which brings an illusion that players today had the "better" chance of winning slam than in 2013.
Not sure about winning slams, but the all-court players coming up these days could very well have kept Novak, Rafa, and Roger from winning theirs (though clay would likely show little difference and). Novak, Rafa, and Roger dominated the passive-aggressive baseliner (PAB) era as the best defensive counterpuncher, toughest grinder, and most skilled offensive player, respectively. Tactically (and skill-wise?) it was one of, if not the, weakest, most uniform eras.
The Chris Evert of the ATP and a modern Muster should never have found themselves so consistently dominate on all surfaces, year in, year out. When opponents allow Novak to slide into consecutive split-leg defensive slices outside the tram lines without a single volley being hit, there's something fundamentally wrong in the opponents' game and, consequently, the game of tennis. The AO2012 final epitomizes the PAB era, where ~6 hrs of tennis saw only a few handful of net approaches (most being involuntary) combined between Rafa and Nadal.
PAB era allowed the best offensive player, the best grinder, and best defensive counterpuncher to win way, Way, WAY more titles than probably deserved.
Laver Cup should have mixed teams men/women then it would succeed. That would it make special just like the Hopman Cup.
The GOAT is on his own lvl and he will be even better in 2024 and will keep to dominate through 2025. 2026-2028 he will drop but stay in top 3 or 4. 2029 he will be probably in retirement if not I will be surprised
Gill, I am SO sick of what's missing in all the laver cup discourse including your own. A few things:
- FIRSTLY, there IS already a qualification for the LC. It's the top 4 players from each side by ranking PLUS 2-3 captains picks. do people not know this???? yes there may be some leeway that's why we could have the incredible Federer farewell edition but no other edition has had competitiveness issues until this year. this year was an aberration bc tsitsipas and rune dropped out VERY last minute which makes it very difficult for them to get another top player in. every single other edition has been extremely competitive and high quality matches filled with tippy top players.
- no one cares about h2h record as much as you think or you and I care. yes they should just get rid of it but ranking points are what actually matters and makes a material difference to the players, so everyone can quit being so academic and dramatic about this
- what part of LC being a UNIQUE format and team event don't people get? it IS an in between event, it's not atp tour and it's not like any other exhibitions. why do you have to fit it into these neat little boxes? look up the definition of UNIQUE again pls. if you want to support the event, pls actually be clear about this and support it, rather than pushing it to be something that already exists.
- the truth about the whole Gael Felix incident is that BOTH failed to know their assignment fully. see my first point. Felix should've loosened up a bit and Gael should have taken it a little bit more seriously. the spirit of it is an exhibition but the rules are atp, otherwise you wouldn't get such high quality matches of all the past editions if players can just take 10 minute toilet breaks or 1 minute between serves. but you also DON'T complain to the umpire to get your opponent a violation, bc that's NOT in the spirit of laver cup. but that was the most Felix has won all year and he was playing it like it was a grand slam.
Gill didn't watch LC in full. Disregard his trolling. He wants the engagement & views, so he takes the easy road to the bandwagon opinion that asks little of haters or himself.
Don't be silly. Without playing a 3rd set and lacking the best players, Laver Cup is a meaningless exhibition that has no merit. Scrubs like Shelton are actually made to look good.
I too want the Laver cup to succeed, but it is indeed in a grey area. It's not the ATP finals, which itself should be done up better, say with 3 out of 5 sets instead of 2 out of 3, but whatever. Laver makes an artificial contest between world and Europe, and that worked when Europe was the GOATS. Now that's over, and so a new model is needed that will not be like ATP finals, but which will still put on a good show. The team aspect is the best thing Laver has going, so maybe the scheme could be over 30 versus under 30 ? The coaches definitely need to be changed or added to.
Over 30 vs under 30 would lead to over 30 getting absolutely butchered every single year. Even if they could get Novak which isn't a guarantee it would then be Dimitrov, Struff, and older Murray ans Stan vs essentially the entire top 10. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt and assume some 28 year old players stay at the top of their games for another 2 years all you get are Cam Norrie and Laslo Djere.
That Federer Djokovic clutchness question is partiely reffering to to wuestion I posted few mts ago about big three nerves comparison. Specificly, Roger won ONLY ONE MATCH OUT OF 13 in finsl set tiebreak. So, I think this goes to Rogers nerves more than Djokovic movement.
Always loved Gill’s objectiveness but I don’t agree with his take on style differences being one of the 3 reasons for Djok out-clutching Fed when every time he was a match point down he would go for a high-risk shot. Even Fed famously called it too reckless for his taste in that salty post match interview in 2011. Just rewatch all those situations from their matches and you’ll see Fed opting for playing very safe by even taking off some pace of his serves and by frequently playing lower risk shots during the rallies. Obviously Fed plays higher risk tennis in general but it seems like they would both do the exact opposite in clutch moments.
Actually, there ARE rules for selection in the Laver Cup. It's supposed to be the 4 highest-ranked players for each side (I think they use the ranking just after Roland-Garros) and the rest are wild cards. Top Europeans obviously wouldn't come - Djokovic of course, Alcaraz, Sinner, even Medvedev - so thet got Ruud, Tsitsipas, Rune and Rublev with two of them withdrawing last minute and being replaced by the first guys who answered the phone. Vancouver was also pretty unconvenient for Europeans. We'll see what happens next year in Berlin - obviously it's going to be a Zverev lovefest, and probably the lineup will be stronger, the organization won't want a repeat of this year.
Not that any of that matters.
Is BETTER, simply 😎
Post 2011, Federer already passed his peak, at the age of 30 -- as most players do. Bjorn Borg peaked out (and retired) at 26.
Back in the day, players started much younger in the pro circuit than they do now, so naturally they retired earlier. It started to change in the late 90s & 00's around the time of the Williams sisters who had longer & more successful careers than usual. Now, with conditioning & training advancements, everyone seeks to play at least until 40, if possible.
Novak at 36 is still at his peak…..11 years and counting..roger and Rafa only 5 years.
Fed lost😊
Personally, I was 100% on Felix's side. The matches are played with total seriousness and the results count in H2H matchups. The tournament is not advertised as an exhibition, its more like the Ryder cup of tennis and Felix treated it as such. Europe obviously didn't sell it to Gael that way though and that's their fault.
Agree completely with your answer to my question on the Laver Cup. I guess I was just wondering what it *would* look like if you tried to legitimate it. But I'm with you that there's really no reason to do that. You really need the best players for it to survive and thrive even as an exhibition though. Otherwise, there's no point.
The other mistake, in my opinion, they made is that it should include the women. Bringing in Swiatek, Sabalenka, and Rybakina for Europe and Gauff, Pegula, and Jabeur for the world would only spice things up and bring more star power.
Please avoid this narrative of the Laver Cup as only valuable because of the Big 3. Gill is trolling y'all for views using a hot button tennis topic he knows will galvanize the haters. Top American players tend bring in more interest, higher ratings, & deeper sponsorships than the plethora players from smaller countries & yet people want tennis to be even smaller & more Eurocentric.
I agree, the WTA should be involved. American success has made the WTA more of a ratings draw at times than the ATP. If there's 4 LC matches at least one should be a women's match. Ideally, it would be an even split each day. It is short-sided to call for the shutting down of Laver Cup.
It's a shame Gill is on this toxic bandwagon. If the players don't mind the absence of points & want to play for fun, money, & team pride of country then great. A more interesting and nuanced discussion would be to look at how the ATP has suffered under the prolonged dominance of FND. But then the fanboys wouldn't like that because they can't simp for their faves.
Yep. Without playing a 3rd set and lacking the best players, Laver Cup is a meaningless exhibition that has no merit. Scrubs like Shelton are actually made to look good.
Federer did not require clutchness and then years later would require to start building it.
Gill doesnt know what it takes to be top100...he's just big 3 bias 21:10
Gr8 point gill 👌👏
Shot making players tend to suffer and commit more mistakes due to their shot making dominant gamestyle.
No1e 🐐❤️
God, my heart is broken over that 2019 Wimbledon Final and will always be broken.
Djokovic was the better player. Just admit it. Lets end this bs mr 40:15, what d' u say 🖖😂
Mr. 40:15 is Novak though. He blew that exact lead in a 26-minute game to Alcaraz in the second set of Wimby. And we all know what happened after that!
@@aiylacarson There is only one mr 40:15, mp blowout maestro, good old Rog 😂. Alcaraz is 16 years younger than Novak, Novak that is still number one at 36, winning 3 majors, having 2:1 this season over you new hope Crampitos, while mr 40:15 when he was 29, in his prime had his ars handed to him by his dad Goatkovic. Sorry for the long comment, there is so much material to troll you fangirls and to ridicule your bs arguments that i just cant resist bashing you losers 🤙🤣
@@aiylacarson Novak overall wasn't clutch and didn't play his best in that Wimby final, something he still does at times (e.g. vs Rune in paris final). It seems that with time, age, or maybe a less strict approach to training/clutchness has made Novak not so clutch in the last few years. Even vs Stef in AUSO finals he wasn't really clutch, Stef just handed it to him in the important moments.. we shall see. it's 50/50 nowadays with his clutchness.
@@slXD100 The best excuse I heard from Novak fans was he lost because of the wind and they should have closed the roof. It’s ridiculous the amount of excuses Novak’s fans make for him. Facts are on any given day any tennis player can lose. No one in the sport is unbeatable.
@@aiylacarsonNovaks fans don’t need to make excuses as he has almost all the major records and is the goat by a big margin
Gill always pretends he's deaf when Rafa talks s...t about Novak in recent years ("Novak's more obsessed with records", "Novak would have been more frustrated if he'd never broken the records") and nice things about himself at the same time ("my ambitions are healthy","I'm not obsessed with records", "I'm satisfied with what I achieved", "I don't get frustrated and have a good perspective"). These healthy ambitions means obviously healthy injections to play 2022 RG, this good perspective means leaving heavily pregnant wife in danger - just to chase another slam title in New York. While Novak is so obsessed that didn't even buy a fake vaccination certificate to play 2 slams and 6 masters events on his favourite surface.
Yeah, Gill behaves here like Rafa himself. Says only good things about him, like "Rafa doesn't look for excuses, 2 slams on clay etc." - when in the same interview, and few times in social media, Rafa obviously is looking for excuses ("I had more injuries"). Yeah, Gill sounds very credible when he says "Rafa doesn't want to sound salty and bitter", hahahaha. Yeah, maybe he doesn't. But he's such a bad actor that he cannot even hide his real thoughts and feelings. Bitter, sore loser. Best PR advisors cannot help in that case, hahaha.
And never expect Gill to say anything accurate in such "controversial" topics - always expect him to pretend he's deaf, like at 2022AO when he covered Djokovic's deportation saga. Blind and deaf when it comes to arguments and saying what's really going on.
So true!
Novak fans are so insecure. He doesn’t have to touch this topic if he doesn’t want to.
1 Novak
24 Grand Slams (Would be 26 or 27 if it wasn't for Covid or Tyrannical Governments) 39 Masters. 69 Big titles .Almost 400 weeks at number 1. Winning H2H against Rafa and Federer. 85 wins or more in every Grand Slam. Best winning percentage against top 10 players. At least 3 of each of the 4 Grand Slams and 2 of Masters, No one else is close to winning all nine masters even once.
2 Sampras
(At his prime Sampras beats Nadal in straight sets at Wimbledon and at the US open)
3 Borg
( 11 Grand Slams by the age of 26)
4 Federer
r (Better than Nadal on Grass and Hardcourts)
5 Nadal
By far the best clay court player ever but on hard court and Grass he is not in the top 5
(Avoided Federer and Novak on Hard courts to maintain a better H2H record against them . He missed 17 tournaments supposedly due to injuries, but Only one on Clay. After missing hard court tournaments due to injury he followed up with winning on clay a few weeks later. Rafa hasn't won a set against Novak on hardcourt in 10 years. Monfis was closer to beating Novak than Rafa since 2014 on Hardcourts. In their last 20 matches Novak leads 13-7 with all Rafa's wins on clay. Novak beat Rafa 5 times on Clay. (twice at the French). Once at Wimbledon and 7 times on Hardcourt. All the 7 matches Novak won on Hard court were in straight sets. only twice Rafa was able to get into a tie break.
Rafa is by far the best clay court player ever but on hard court and Grass he is not in the top 5 .
Or fed could have more slams if he won those matches
I hate byes too Gill! Wish they would remove them altogether.
Every player should play all rounds!
15:13 how is there zero evidence that at least 1 player could not win at least 1 slam after the several years that Djokovic retires, that is almost objectively wrong, I would say it is going to happen at least once.
Obviously a player, or multiple players, will win one slam! The question was- post-Djokovic are we going to enter a period of many one slam winners as opposed to consistent champions in the top tier.
Hey Gil I didn't know you would reply to me, I just want to say I love your channel and what you do here is great, keep up the great work thanks.@@GillGross
No way are Medvedev and Zverev Gods if you put them in previous eras.
Players have better groundstrokes now, but are weaker at the net, etc. It also has to do with court speed and raquet and string technology.
Pete Sampras id the goat ofnfast courts.
i think everyone who doesn't like Fed should be thankful he wasn't clutch, since if he was, he'd have 30 majors, and choked out the Serbian; since he was the superior shot-maker
IF IF IF...you can say that for any player federer played before novak and he wouldnt even have 20 GS...whats the point of "IF"
Fed fans with their fiction again 😂😂
Any discussion of Djokovic v. Federer is incomplete without addressing the age difference between them, which is substantial, and the fact that Novak peaked after Federer was already past his prime. No shade to Djokovic, an amazing champion, but post 2010 Federer was just not as clutch in general as he was in 2003-2009, and it's hard to come up with the best shots in high pressure moments at 38 against a historic rival who's physically superior to you, as was the case in 2019 Wimbledon for instance.
Novak is 16 years older then Alcaraz.
@@ja-kl8rg and when we discuss the Alcaraz Djokovic rivalry 15 years from now that will be a big part of that discussion.
@@Gnayazad The point is Federer was past his prime at 30 , Novak is prime at 36 . Also was Federer past his prime in 2011 or Novak was just better player ?
Simple, why?? Cause Fed's backhand is simply not good enough to stand toe to toe vs Novaks backhand, and on top of that y gotta add the fact Novak becomes a wall, Fed may be OK hitting 2, 3 times in a row from that side, but beyond that is Russian roulette 😂😂😂 I mean, the only other backhand that could not only stand toe to toe, but actually run down Novak on that side, ironically, was another 1-hander.. the sublimely beautiful, yet utterly drstructive backhand of Wawrinka.
I disagree with you in there being single winners for awhile on men’s side like it’s been in women’s heck yes it’s gonna !!! Alcaraz is great and will even win multi slams but will not be every year and will not be anything close to what we’ve seen !!
Why are u trying to sugarcoat rafa?
Only one reason -- TIME. Fed beat Novak the prior three years in a row at the US Open -- '07 (F), '08 (SF) and '09 (SF). The six year age gap between Fed and Novak finally caught up to Fed, he lost a step and had to rely more on offense. Previously he was easily Novak's equal on defense.
Novak was 20-21 at those years.
Fed was 27.
How many slams has Fed won since 2009.
How many slams Fed won after turning 30 and how many did Djoker win?
Gill, I have been supporting your channel since the beginning. You said you would put priority to members. I’ve asked the same question THREE TIMES during last mailbags. It was regarding Saudi money flowing to ATP. You promised to get to it next time. You did not. Incredibly disappointed. I’ve been your fan for last 5 years. But you’ve ignored me. Dodging difficult questions? I’m ending my subscription now 😢
That question carries socioeconomic realities & geopolitical implications. Gill is not trying to land in hot water because of someone paying $2-5 a month, duh! Move on & ask a different question that won't get someone killed or hacked.
@@got2bjoshyour argument just proves my point about the real problem with Saudi money. Doesn’t it? You wouldn’t be afraid to critisize if it were British or French money. But we are afraid to critisize because it’s a bloody dictatorship. ATP is willing to take this money and the whole tennis world afraid to talk about it.
I totally get why Gill may be evading this question. He may be going there to call matches. I get it. But this just proves that there is something WRONG about this situation
People always forget that in early days Novak used to very unclutch. Just look at his loss to Federer in 2007 USO Final
His transformation is legendary 💪
@@guruk Yeah, he also later in his career had those choking moments (combined with unluckiness when it comes to scheduling) - USO 2012, Wimbledon 2013, USO 2013, even that AO 2014. There were moments when he was very unclutch in crucial matches, fortunatelly Wimbledon 2014 came
@@idc9053 2015 RG, 2021 USO and 2023 Wimbledon finals all come to mind as well! Just imagine the opposite outcomes for all three of those matches and boom - Novak is suddenly three times calendar slam owner, surpassing even two of Laver!...not to mention, that he choked massively against Nadal at RG quarter-final last year too in 4th set, he had it on the plate, but managed to mess it all up, could have beatned Nadal that day, choked massively...All those chokes and misfortunes and he is still 24 times slam winner with gazillion of other unique achievements and feats to boot! That's how good he is...
Novak was too young and lack of experience in GS final in year 2007 man, he did not play terrible but he lost some big points at the end of each set.
Why? Your girly boy didn’t have the balls to win it?
If you're gonna copy Federer's playing style, then at least back it up by slams, cuz otherwise it's kinda corny
If we look at the Federer Djokovic Rivalry in more detail (beyond those 3 40-15 instances) the idea that ND just "outclutched" Fed does not really hold up to scrutiny
Here are some stats to back it up:
Federer leads all sets gone to 5-5 by 27-23 (prior to 2018 he lead 26-17)
At the US open Fedole have by far the best sample size (6 matches & at least two in either prime):
Federer won 10 out of 13 sets going to 5-5.
He won all 4 Tiebreaks.
He won both TBs they played at RG as well.
It was in the later stage of their rivalry that ND always outlasted Federer in long physical matches.
Even if we look at those US Open matches in 2010/11 when Fed lost from being up match points.
It was Federer outclutching Djokovic in all those sets leading into the 5th that made those matches epic 5 setters in the first place.
your stats fall apart the moment we use a different threshold, and match points are more important
@@BOZ_11 match points are useless for deep analysis because the sample size is low
They are for casuals who unable to grasp the bigger picture
@@John-lr4hp the last 15 points are nothing either
@@BOZ_11 it is not the last 15 points
it is the last 15 points across 50 sets.
That's a better sample size than 3 matches turned around on match points after 3/4/5 hours of play.
But ofc analysing all deuce, 30 all, bps, sps would be even more conclusive
@@John-lr4hp so your contention is that djoko is better at hitting winners than Federer?
Lol 2 majors in clay. That would end so many careers
Federer was older. Simple.
funny , you don’t see 36 yo Novak losing slam matches after having 2 consecutive match points , lol you fedal fangirls love your excuses, the guy with the best serve on his best surface loses 2019 Wimbledon final in a 5th set after being 7-8 -15-40 up on his serve and you use age as an excuse 😅😅😅
@valentine633: he literally just lost wimbledon2023 final from a wining position you dipstick 🙄🙄🙄
NO1E is OUT, RUGBY WORLD CUP is on going, so Lets the POKEMONS HAVING FUN