2015 Wimbledon

[eaglespremiers]

I think he won because in the rallies he kept pushing for the baseline in his shots.
Fed was having to defend from deep behind the baseline.
And then he'd start hammering Fed's backhand.
If Fed had been given more opportunities to volley he would've been every chance to play the game out.
Djokovic just had no answer for them.

 

[Pee Tear Griffin]

While you're absolutely right about Federer, I can't help to feel like this "age" thing is a bit overused. Federer is Federer. Federer will always be Federer and his game relies on accuracy and footwork most of the time - meaning he'll always be a damn good player despite age. A few years of difference between him and Djokovic/Rafa really isn't that much. When you think about it, in 2011, people were doubting Djokovic's ability to be as a good as Federer was when he was 28-29. Then as each year passed it turned into a "we'll see if Rafa and Novak can play as well as Roger when they're 30... 31... 32.. 33 etc." We've been hearing the same thing for years now.

I can see Djoko genuinely dominating and winning slams at 30+ if he actually plays on. Some doubts whether he wants to or not seeing as though he's got children to look after. Time will tell I guess.

Have to agree with you on the age thing. 34 is no longer the "grandfather" age in sports that people make it out to be. Particularly in this era with improved recovery, conditioning and nutritional techniques that sportsmen are privy to, it is becoming more possible for players to play and indeed succeed in their 30's. You also make a good point about Federer's playing style; he hardly relies on his athleticism to win most matches so it's no huge surprise to see him still doing well (helps when you're arguably the most talented guy to ever play the sport).

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

I think he won because in the rallies he kept pushing for the baseline in his shots.
Fed was having to defend from deep behind the baseline.
And then he'd start hammering Fed's backhand.
If Fed had been given more opportunities to volley he would've been every chance to play the game out.
Djokovic just had no answer for them.

As the article explains - Federer only serve and volleyed on 22% of first serve points. He didn't take his opportunities on his first serve to attack more - even though he was winning 72% of points when he did S&V, as opposed to only 40% of points from the baseline. He missed the trick.

Federer also blew crucial points. The two double faults and that easy put away which sailed long - crucial points where he, dare I say it, choked.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Federer also blew crucial points. The two double faults and that easy put away which sailed long - crucial points where he, dare I say it, choked.

Yep, there were probably a dozen really crucial points and I can only really remember him getting up for the one or two in the tie-break in the second.

 

[pepsi]

Just finished watching the second set. Gees Novak really should have won that tiebreak, but it was bloody fun to watch. On the balance of play, the match deserved to be tied at one set all after 2 sets.

 

[bato]

Federer also blew crucial points. The two double faults and that easy put away which sailed long - crucial points where he, dare I say it, choked.

Not like he hasn't done it before.

22:48

 

[Teen Wolf]

I keep mentioning his age because winning slams past your 30th birthday is extremely difficult. Here is the list of blokes who have done it in the open era.

Petr Korda - 30
Andres Gomez - 30
John Newcombe - 30
Roger Federer - 30
Pete Sampras - 30
Arthur Ashe - 31
Andres Gimeno - 34
Andre Agassi x 2 - 30, 32
Jimmy Connors x 2 - 30, 31
Rod Laver x 4 - 30, 30, 30, 31
Ken Rosewall x 4 - 33, 35, 36, 37

That is just 11 guys since 1968 to win majors past their 30th birthday. Only Agassi, Sampras and Federer have done it since the turn of the century.

Good post. However I would that, at the very least, you've forgotten about Wawrinka given he's been 30yo for a few months now.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

The only thing better than seeing Murray lose was seeing Federer lose and everyone in the stadium going home sad lol

Yep, there were probably a dozen really crucial points and I can only really remember him getting up for the one or two in the tie-break in the second.

Novak was so ridiculously clutch, as always, when serving on break point

 

[imadodgyumpire]

I was watching the piece on ABC news. They're showing a montage of the game as the reporter is describing the game. For fleeting moment there was a shot of Hugh Grant in the stands. As soon as that moment passed the reporter says "Divine strokes thrilled the crowd..." Or something like that.