The way undisputed world number one Novak Djokovic played against Roger Federer in the first two sets in last night’s Australian Open semi in Melbourne was almost flawless.
The scoreline was 6-1 6-2, taking just 54 minutes – Djokovic made just six errors, Federer 22. Djokovic won 56 points and Federer won 27.
One way traffic.
But Federer is not only one of the greatest players of all-time, winner of a record 17 Slams, and the undisputed crowd favourite, he also found a way to get back in the fight.
As Djokovic said in the post-match conference, “he raised his first serve percentage, I didn’t do much wrong, but he took command of the rallies”.
Federer won the third set 6-3 in 45 minutes as the rallies increased, with both playing so many unbelievable shots that brought the packed house to its feet.
Vintage tennis.
Watching in the stand were two Australian legends in Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall. But this was a vastly different game to what they played in the 1950s and 1960s where the racquets and balls were hugely inferior to today.
It was a damn shame the roof took 11 minutes to close after the third set with rain around. One got the feeling Federer’s newly-found momentum took a hit.
He would far rather have continued having won the third set, but that never happened.
The fourth set was evenly contested, but Djokovic always looked in control, and in what seemed inevitable he broke Federer in the eighth game to serve out the match 6-1 6-2 3-6 6-3 in a gripping two hours and 19 minutes.
Djokovic awaits tonight’s second semi between Andy Murray and Milos Raonic, the first Canadian to reach the Australian Open semis.
Murray’s been there done that, reaching five Australian Open semis, that includes four finals.
He was beaten in the 2012 semis by Djokovic, by Federer in the 2010 final, and again by Djokovic in the 2011, 2013, and 2015 finals.
But there’s an awesome stat surrounding Djokovic since the start of last year’s US Open.
He has won 37 of 38 matches, losing only to Federer in the qualifying rounds of the ATP World Tour tournament. He beat Federer in the final
In those 38 matches, Djokovic has won 16 of 17 against the world’s top 10.
But the more burning question is will the 34-year-old Roger Federer hang up his racquet soon?
No way Jose.
In his post-match conference, he said, “You guys (media) think I’m old, but I can still go four or five hours – no trouble”.
Long may that be the case.
Riccardo
Guest
McEnroe on level 2? Edberg on level 3? The names you list suggest you have been watching tennis for a long time Johnno. Your post does not however...
Ben
Guest
Novak preparing for space travel....... http://www.hypermed.com.au/Conditions/Gallery-%20HyperMED%20-%20Hyperbaric%20Oxygenation.htm
Rory
Guest
Yes Newcombe definitely needs to be there. Arthur Ashe and Tony Roche should be there also.
Nick
Guest
Yeah it was a joke. See above. Fed should play as long as he wants, of course. Who the hell am I to suggest otherwise!
Rob
Guest
I like your list Johnno, but why Goran ivenisavic in tier 6. I would of thought he would be of equal to pat rafter
Johnno
Guest
John Mcenroe won 7 GSlams, never own a grand slam tournament after age 25. Wilander won 7 grand slams, never won a slam after aged 24. Milos Raonic, is just a journeyman, a 1990's Guy Forget/Cedric Pioline/Todd Martin types.
Johnno
Guest
HarryHp I did, these lists are good and in many ways address the “Article’s Question”. I enjoy tennis. Since I put this post I thought of a few more I forgot, and you’ve given me a few good names. So here goes. -Thomas Muster I’m sticking with Tier-4, his record on clay is superb. And he has a good record, on other surfaces except Grass. He won eight Masters 1000 series titles. Muster is one of only three players to win Masters titles on three different surfaces (clay, carpet, and hard court). So bigger picture he has a better record than Roddick. But Roddick was decent on grass, he made 3 wimbledon finals runner up all 3. Muster was decent on other surfaces, but Muster was useless on Grass. But no, I’m keeping Muster at Tier-4 just my view, and Roddick at Tier-5, as Muster has such a strong clay court record. Tier 2: I’d add aussie John Newcombe. His record is very good and won 5 majors in the open-era and a few other sin non open era, and bear Jimmy Connors in his prime to win one of his Australian opens, and reached world no 1 in the open era. Tier 4: Id’ add Gustavo Kuerten, former world no 1, won 3 French opens, that’s a decent record. -Tier 5: Korda/Chang/Moya I agree, good add ons
Fox Molder
Guest
Raonic's technique will cause him injuries. He is the right handed Nadal. His right elbow and shoulder are under huge stresses.
HarryHp
Guest
I doubt it. Raonic is 25 years old. He's gotten to Number 8 in the world and is currently in the teens. By that age, Djoker, Fed and Nadal had all won multiple slams and spent time at number 1. Raonic has never made it past a SF - I'd have him closer to Murray like for like. I think we'll be talking about Kyrgios in the next 5 years - if he can keep his brain in gear.
HarryHp
Guest
I'd drop Thomas Muster down with Andy Roddick, and add Carlos Moya, Petr Korda and Michael Chang the next level down.. Otherwise a pretty good list - you obviously put some thought in it
Carrol brown
Guest
I wonder what players we could have this conversation about in 5 years. I'd almost put money on Raonic being there
Carrol brown
Guest
He can stay as long as he likes. He'd be making a nice living while he does. Not much in the way of injuries to send him off. Lleyton has been far from the top ten for years but still played and made a great living out of it.
clipper
Guest
Yes, agree sheek. Not only did Sampras never win a French, he only got to the semis once, so don't think you can bunch Novak in that category - he's reached the final three times and numerous semis, so he can play pretty well on that surface. Borg made the US finals 4 times, so was no slouch on that surface and was one of many who avoided the AO, which at that time was an easy way of getting a Slam - times have changed in that regard. Agassi and Conners were still winning slams after 30, with Connors going well into his 40's yet still having an above 80% career success rate, an amazing statistic. Federer could well go on for some time being competitive and Novak could easily eclipse his record if he can maintain his high standards.
Johnno
Guest
My List: Since Open era started Tier 1: Sampras/Federer/Nadal/Novak Tier 2: Jimmy Connors/Mcenroe/Bjorg/Agassi Tier 3:Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Mats Wilander Tier 4:Jim Courier/Marat Safin/Lleyton Hewitt/Pat Rafter/Andy Murray/Thomas Muster/Guillermo Vilas/Ilie Năstase/Yevgeny Kafelnikov Tier 5: Andy Roddick Tier 6: Sergi Brugera/Richard Krajeck/Goran Ivansevic/Yannick Noah/Micheal Stich/Pat Cash Tier 7: Journey men e.g. top 10-20 players e.g. (Mark Phillipousus/Henri Leconte/Guy Forget/Todd Martin/Nicoli Davydenko types PS- For this exercise I'm not including Rod Laver/Ken Rosewall as they didn't play a lot in the Open Era
Johnno
Guest
Rory
Guest
Novak's ability to retrieve the unretrievable is almost superhuman. It's what sets him apart. He hits winners when anyone else would be lucky to get racquet on ball. He ramps that up when he plays Roger and this exerts enormous pressure. Roger knows he must make all the play but also knows that no matter how good a shot he plays, it's probably coming back. It was similar when Nadal played Federer, like they save their best for him. Novak's self belief is also critical. He goes for the lines and makes it - by a hair sometimes as hawkeye showed us a couple of times last night. This is all part of being the best in the world. Roger snatched at shots, pulled the trigger without confidence, and missed. Slow courts are his enemy too. That said, they are still 50/50 over 3 sets as last year showed. I think Federer could use his sliced backhand more, keep it low, make Novak bend his knees, take his rhythm away. The topspin one hander seems ineffective. He's coming over his backhand approach when he should heavily slice it, cut in and keep it low. Could be the key at wimbledon.
spruce moose
Guest
Well, we've been privileged to see Novak v Nadal. Arguing which one of those two is better would be a thrilling chat.
spruce moose
Guest
Winning all four slams as a measure of greatness? It's a high ceiling...only 4 men in the open has ever done that. And no man has won all 4 twice in the open era. I personally think other measures should be included, i.e at least 52 weeks at the top of the rankings winning tour finals at least 6 grand slam victories, across at least 2 surfaces defending a grand slam title Again, in my opinion, I would find it hard to view Agassi as the superior player to Sampras simply because he was able to nab a French open.
Kaks
Roar Guru
I remember when Nadal started his dominance at the French open, a lot of commentators were saying that Nadal would peak at 26 due to the way he plays and the exertion he puts on his body (mainly his wrist) due to the amount of top spin he tries to generate. So far they have been correct about that.
Kaks
Roar Guru
Yes but Novak is just as dominating as Federer was at Novak's age. Its a real shame they were born in similar years, would have been great to have Federer vs Novak vs Nadal in their prime.