What a crap Final this was! It was marred with terrible nerves,choking and errors from both players.It was terrible.I still cant fathom how Federer was able to win in straight sets.Nevertheless,it shows how great he is. He really just thrived on Novaks nerves.

Novak kinda resembled Anna Ivanovic in her French Open Final earlier this year.Shame I hope he learns from this.This guy will be huge in the future!

On whole a crap final!

Agree that it wasn't a classic.What's amazing is how Fed managed to come back whenever he was threatened.I'm sure today Novak is wondering how he lost.It actually reminded me a lot of the Montreal final,only then it was Fed who let his chances slip away.I suppose shows Rog's uncanny ability to up his game when it counts most.Novak is a great player though and he will definitely be a threat to Fed in future.

It wasnt a classic , but the thing that stands out is how Federer always seems to get through these crisis points in big matches.

I thought some of the points were simply outstanding. And a good match is not necessarily about having drama but the pace at which the ball was flying in all corners was very reminiscent (if not of a better level) than the AO 05 semi between Safin and Federer which I consider one of the best match ever.

The think is the pace is constantly going up slam after slam and it is difficult to have plenty of exchanges without having the so called UEs creeping in.

Plus it was windy so it was difficult for the players to get into a kind of rhytm and be confident in their shots.

The backhand winner down the line to close the second set was simply amazing!!!!!!!

Interesting enough you saying that.We got out feed for the final via ESPN and they were so prompt in telling us how they are slowing down the game.The ball is going to be made a bit bigger.Apparently they have a sample ball. I must say that the pace of the US Open courts is amazing!

I agree that some rallies were great especially that end point in the second set but the match was of a terrible quality.Choking and pushing!It was aweful.Tenez bud how could you even compare it to that Aussie Open 05 match.It wasnt even close.The Montreal Final was 10 times better!

Unfortunately not many of us on here were able to watch it , I guess they'rell be highlights on Youtube .
By the sound of it there were some awesome points.

A handful of good points, but on the whole it was a pretty horrible match. Reminded me of an FA Cup final - all nerves and nobody wanting to concede. Not much aggressive stuff going on and on big points Federer gave Djokovic some junk and Djoko looked like he had no answers. Was disappointed in the quality. Djokovic had it on his racquet and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Federer did JUST enough.

Hi Darky - You may be right about Montreal being better as it seems Fed thinks Djoko played better there as well. I do think however that despite slowing everything up, the rhythm of the game has actually gone up. Take any Sampras/Agassi 10 rally exchange (about 12 secs) and in average they last 1.5 second extra than a 10 rally exchange between Fed and Blake for instance. This is a huge acceleration of pace.

Making the balls bigger would be a huge mistake. This is what makes Wimbledon as slow as the FO nowadays.

I have watched most of the match and I noticed a few things:

I think a Fed - Djokovic match will always have a higher UE count than you would expect, because Djokovic player a higher risk game than Fed and Nadal.

Fed's error count was a bit on the high side, but I feel the wind was partly to blame. However, I also feel Fed may have been a bit under the weather in his last two matches, perhaps due to the stress of closing in Pete's record, perhaps due to a small bug. He did say he was fatigued.

And we are talking about the missed opportunties of Djoko in the first set but the way Federer gave the break in the first place was so stupid as well. 2 easy points that should have gone to Fed went to Djoko as Fed missed 2 sitters.

This sums it up nicely.He gave him junk on big points and he mucked it up.There was this club level waiting for the error type tennis being played.It was horrible! :angry:

Interesting there Tenez,but I dont think using a Sampras Agassi analogy is a good one.Sampras always attacked and Andre always defended or had to pass hence the shortness of the rallies.Novak and Federer are baseliners so rallies regadless of courts and balls are going to be longer. :ok:

But thats actually the other way around. I am talking about 10 rally exchanges where both Agassi and Sampras were playing from the baseline and they were both attacking from the baseline, yet the average rally was taking more time than todays current rallies. In short there is more pace in todays shots than there were then, despite the effort of slowing the courts.

Well, first up, again like in the French Open semifinal, Davydenko has clearly demonstrated he's not up to the job of handling the pressure in slam semifinals against Federer. How many leads has he now thrown away with poverty play in those two matches? In France he served for all three sets and still managed to lose in straight sets!! Nothing to do with Federer brilliance. It's very disappointing and unsatisfactory.

In the final, it was Novak's first final so I'm prepared to cut him a bit of slack. He got to three set points in the 1st set with great serves then realised where he was - and fell to pieces.

In the second set, on the 2nd set point, he went for his forehand and it went just long, but at least he went for the shot.

As for the level of Tennis, some rallies were nice and they make nice angles - but on the whole, THE WHOLE, there are too many men in the top 10 who do not use their brain, ego seems to take over or their coaching is not that good because they use no strategy whatsoever.

And yet Federer is able to do that (strategy), forget the pace of the ball, Federer wins many points at key moments by slowing the ball down, keeping it low with slice making his opponents having to create extreme topspin to create pace, so as a result they either make an error (because it's pretty difficult to do consistently) or they drop the ball short and Federer attacks.

It's just further proof that a player with a one hand backhand has more variety, Henin did the same in the womens final.

The question that I have is, why can't top 10 players like Blake, Davydenko, Haas and Djokovic adapt their games when the ocassion demands? They just hit the ball all the time, that's why they can't take their opportunites. Federer gives his opponents more break points and breaks of serves than I would have thought from a top player but always breaks back on many ocassiosn because his opponents are not able to control their nerves due to the fact they can only play one way, they just are not smart enough.

I think Djokovic is smart enough to learn this for the future.

If anyone saw the 2001 US Open quaterfinal between Agassi and Sampras, the pace was just as fast then as today, that was a baseline bash festival. The court at Flushing has always been faster than other hardcourts since Arthur Ashe court opened in 1997 plus they use Wilson balls, probably the fastest around.

I disagree,the rallies now are longer than the rallies then!

scvangils fully agree with your remarks...Come on guys..The wind was just terrible down there and the AH Stadium in New York is well know to be one of the worst on the tour when there are windy conditions.

Said all that, I agree the match was not so spectacular but he was tense, with some amazing rallies and shots done by both players and with a man, i.e. FED, who is more mature and able to do his job as he needs to be done at his "age". More precisely, FED is using more and more his head (and hard) by creating strategies and plans and then by executing them at the right moment..He will never play anymore like the guys at 20: He needs and he wants to do something different. The man is right: He has to do that, in order to keep him motivated and to continue to have fun out there. ;) :P .

If he was playing as in the 20 (i.e. basically searching for the spectacular winners all the time and using his fantastic technique) he would have to take more risks, run more, use more energy..

He does not want to do that and he is right..FED has demonstrated yesterday simply that he is "mature" he is adapting his game to the opponents more and more, he play more and more with him to find the weakness at the right moment (yesterday the Djoko tensions at the end of the sets)..

Once again, he is doing all that to find new ways to motivate and keep motivations high..It is normal, it is correct and this is how great champion behave to stay up to the top for long period... :rolleyes:

Well you cannot argue against a stopwatch Darky, can you? ;)

Laurie - I think I mentioned to you that I watched and stopwatched a few rallies from both men then and men's now. About 20 of them in each era, and they are significantly shorter now than then. Anyone with an ear can hear as well that the ball between 2 hits is shorter now. It is very easy to check!

Laurie, I know you're a big Sampras fan, but the top 10 has almost always been filled with one-dimensional players and players who could choke big time. Apart from Agassi, a list of Sampras's main rivals.

Krajicek: was able to beat Sampras very often, but his fragile physique never allowed him to play well for a long period of time.
Becker: great attacker and competitor but always played the same
Ivanisevic: Incredible serve, but never had the volleys and the nerves to back it up on the big stage
Kafelnikov: comparable to Djokovic, good allround player but very susceptible to nerves.
Courier: never recovered when other players got used to his power game
Muster: great clay-courter, but used too much strength and spin to create real pace on faster courts.
Rios: great talent, lousy attitude
Korda: great talent, bad serve, bad nerves
Stich: fantastic all-rounder, but lacked the self-belief (especially compared to Becker) to be a consistent threat.
Moya: never had the pace in his strokes and returns to really threaten Sampras on a faster court
Corretja: same problem

The funny thing is, a lot of the times being able to switch to a plan B is weakness, because it usually means your plan A isn't good enough, since you use it less. A one dimensional game is usually also very steady.

Players such as Sampras and Federer who are able to play varied, whilst still keeping a clear head are very rare indeed.

:ok: roflmao

I cant argue with the stop watch but are you seriously telling me that the rallies back then are longer than the rallies now?

Come on Tenez.

Darky - You can pick up any Youtube link and watch Sampras/Agassi rallies and then get a Federer/Blake one. I have done it and even double checked with DVD versions. It is easier if you compare long rallies from both eras.

PS - I am not saying tht Sampras/Agassi were rallying more than now. I hope this is clear. Exchanges were shorter but when rallies went on, let's say, a rally where the ball crosses the net 10 times, nowadays, the ball crosses the net for the 10th time with 1.5 second less than 10 years ago..in average of course. Which means the tempo of the rallies is considerably faster nowadays.

Hope this clarifes but then again feel free to check. I'd like to see if you come with different figures.

Dark, what Tenez is not taking into consideration is a few factors. The match he is using to make a comparison will be in islolation. It will be on a diffirent hardcourt surface, on a different day, in a non slam event. In a non slam event, that's an important point, the intensity in the latter stages of a slam event are vastly different and thus the tempo is bound to be quicker.

By the way Scvangills, I see your point. The courts were already been slowed down considerably in 1990s. The big difference then and now is that they have literally gotten rid of all of the indoor carpet courts. As Courier pointed out, it's harder for serve and volleyers to flourish now because of that. But the Australian, Miami and Indian wells hardcourts were consdierably slow throughout the 1990s. But now even indoor tournaments are played on hardcourts (must be tough on the body)

But in terms of some players you mentioned, Becker played much more from the baseline on hardcourts than he did on grass, Kafelnikov did have good volleying skills and Goran did also play a lot more from the backcourt on other surfaces, remember that the grass season was only 3 weeks a year ten years ago as well.

The difference is that it just happened, guys modyfying thier game for particular surfaces. But now because everyone plays from the baseline, they play the same way regardless of the surface. That's quite a difference and is something that should be taken into consideration

I'm just taliking about the fact that I would like to see players varying their game more.

That was a fantastic shot.It's incredible how Fed brings out these shots when it counts most.It was a close match,but in the end Fed came through in 3.I thought it would bee :bow: n a 4 setter at least.

I feel we are seeing players coming to the net more now than we did a few years ago: Fed has forced them to do so. As has been discussed before, S&V is almost impossible these days because of the string technology, but finishing a point at the net is still as important as it ever was.

I think it's just the accents that have shifted: ten years ago you needed to have a good serve, a good volley and decent groundies on a faster court, these days you need a good serve, a decent volley and good groundies. I agree with you that we need varied play, but I feel we still have variation, but perhaps less extreme than a few years ago.

Laurie - I am not discussing the difference in styles then and now. I am just saying that the ball is flying faster now than then and to catch up a ball flying faster one also has to run faster and that added together make the pace at which rallies go nowadays faster than then . And I am not saying an extraordinary thing, here, it is not only obvious but audible and checkable with a stopwatch across a wide variety of matches of now and back then.

It is like saying that Rodick average serve is faster than Federer. Nothing more nothing less. I am not saying that Roddick serves better than Fed. just faster.

Some very interesting remarks by FED..Once again, as I said above, he is playing like that, he is testing himself with these young guns because he needs to be challenged by them..He needs to have "fun" out there: And having "fun" at this moment of the career is really to win by using his head and his hard more than all his shots repertoire all the time..Here the remarks anyway:

And now clearly established as the world No.3 behind Federer and Rafael Nadal, Djokovic could not have received a greater compliment than when his Open conqueror acknowledged as "very possible" a Nadal-style rivalry with the Serb could be on the horizon.

"He's been very consistent. I think if I would have played him twice in the semis of the French and Wimbledon, then I would have had maybe more of a rivalry with him," Federer said.

"But he landed on Rafa's side (of the draw)."
Federer welcomed the prospect of Djokovic testing him more often in the majors.

"Honestly, I've enjoyed the challenge of young guys challenging me," he said.

"This is probably my biggest motivation out there, seeing them challenge me, beating them in the final. It's really for me the best feeling, to be honest.

"If a rivalry comes along, great. So far we haven't played many times in finals of tournaments. It's always been quarter-finals, last 16.

"Now we've had two finals back-to-back. That always helps the rivalry.

"But I still obviously consider the one I have with Nadal much more serious at the moment."

Ok I understand that you are talking about the speed of the ball and not the rallies duration.Its obvious that the balls are heavier now therefore they would travel through the air slower than back and with the ball about to become bigger its going to be even slower.That tell me however that the game is faster now than it was then. Very Weird :shrug:

The Montreal final was part of Fed's master plan to help Djokovic overtake Nadal at No. 2. If Nadal drops to number 3, Fed may have an opportunity to beat him twice in the Masters Cup, further improving the head-to-head.

Interesting Theory!

Yes because the rackets and the strings and even more so the technic (especially double HBH) make the rallies much faster. If it was slower, everybody would be at the net. And this explains why some want to consider slowing it up even more so, which I think would be a big mistake.

It all makes sense now!

I don't agree. Now, I didn't see most of the beginning of the match, but certainly from the end of the second set on, I thought it was overall a very decent-quality final. Both men were going for their shots more than not, if you ask me, which can sometimes lead to errors, but there was also plenty of magic. There were two points in the last game of the match in particular, I remember, which were just :bow: from Fed.

Granted, we've seen better-quality matches. But it was full of tension and drama (unusually so for what turned out to be a straight-sets match), and plenty of beautiful tennis to admire.

You do seem to have a tendency to focus on the negative, my friend ... :)

:unsure:

Tenez, I appreciate what you are saying about speed of ball, raquet strings etc - But as far as I'm concerned it still comes back to a combination of strategy and style of play.

The rallies on average will probably be faster - but as I said before, due to the fact that Roger Federer is the only male player right now in the top 20 who regularly is willing and able to change the course of a rally.

So if you have Blake v Davydenko, the rallies are fast are furious BUT neither player is prepared to compromise, Davydenko never uses the slice backhand to change the play, they just bash with no real strategy. Technically speaking, I don't see Blake serving to open up the court consistently.

Federer does all of these things well which is why he is continually beating the opposition. In the past there were more players around who were capable of changing the play. Not as good as Federer or indeed Sampras but it was more in their vocabulary to do it.

So players could hit the ball as fast and as hard as they want but without a strategic brain its a total waste of time and is more superficial than substance.

I think Djokovic looks capable of doing that, I see he's willing to slow the play down by taking one hand off to hit the slice - the slice creates so many openings on return of serve and baseline rallies. Just look at Henin and Mauresmo (pre appendix), they regularly beat power players like Clijsters and Kuznetsova by breaking up the player, slowing it downj with slice, getting the opponent off balance, taking advantage of short balls by getting to net to end the point.

Why can't other players learn from Roger Federer? (and Henin)

:ok: :ok: fully agree..Once again, as I said..For FED passing his time to exercise and use his strategic mind more than his shot making all the time has become, IMO, his way to find new inspirations and open new frontiers..I remember a post match interview of him after Toronto/Mon Master this year;" Djoko is young is firing shots with plenty of pace almost all the time , like me in the 20, and sometime it works and you will win the match..But there is no plan.." He was just pointing out this factor: I need and I want o play and win with a plan with a strategy with Head and hard more than Brutal force.. :rolleyes:

BTW Final interview of FED here:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interview...9387326218.html

Well I'd say that Davydenko and Djoko are good enough on their BH not to have to slice it really. Fed does slice because he wants to break the rythm but also in my view mostly because when rallies go BH to BH, Davy and Djoko are more powerful, consistent and little by little are opening the court. So the slice for Fed is a good way to change rhythm and it is also a safer shot when the ball is hit hard on Fed's BH. How many times have we seen Fed shank the BH first when both players are hitting it flat ? I don't think Fed won both those matches (semi and final) because of his superior or smarter tennis but certainly because of his mind. In that respect this is very reminicent of the way Sampras was winning. I do believe however that Federer's tennis is still up there and even better than the rest but it was certainly not obvious in the semi and final.

Regarding "opening the court", again, Davydenko and Djoko are masters of it. Djoko for instance is much better at opening the court v Nadal than Fed for instance, again, thanks to his hard flat FH and double HBH. If Fed had Djoko's BH power and consistency, we woudl not have a Federer/Nadal rivalry. It woudl all be Fed.

I think having a"smart" tennis is certainly not enough nowadays. It is way too physical especially against guys like Djoko and Davy who relentlessly make you run right to left at very high speed (and this is where Federer is extremely good as well in his own way). I saw live the Henin v Bartoli match at Wimbledon and the "smart" one thee was Bartoli who completely exhausted Justine by makig her run more than she could and finally lost the edge and the match.

This is why I am saying, we cannot look at a 10 year old match and make comparison. Agassi was very much a djoko and Davydenko in his own way except that Djoko and Davydo are simply running faster and hitting harder and this is what the stopwatch says, not me.

Interstingdiscussion nonetheless. ;)

By the way TV - About time you update your signature!!!! ;)

:D :D Done my friend..I am now acknowledge God :lmaao: to be here at the same time than him: what a chance to follow him live ;) ;)