Novak Djokovic

[RichC]

The Federer part is clear hyperbole!!!

[Chris]

The problem for Nadal is that he has no plan B. He never needed one before now. Plan A have always been good enough, until now.

If he want to take back the number one spot then he must develop his game. Djokovic is a better attacking and defensive player than him.

Federer is the only player out there that have a realistic chance against Djokovic because he got a plan B and a plan C. He is better than Djokovic at some things, Nadal isn't.

You know what you will get from Nadal. Djokovic found him out big time. You don't know what you will get from Federer so you really never can find him out.

I agree with most of that, Federer definitely matches up better v Djokovic but dont agree you cant find Federer out, Nadal has, Federer has only beat him twice in 4 years (and lost 9) and both of those were when Nadal has been absolutely exhausted after marathon matches the day before. Fed is a mental midget v Rafa.

[Neil Young]

I don't think any of these players has an issue with their mentality. They are three of the greatest players ever.

I listened to some of the final on the radio last night and it was actually quite instructive. Since they can't rely on pictures and don't have time to describe everything they have to analyse patterns of play more than you get on television (where they tend to talk about individual shots). And the story they were telling last night was, in a nutshell, about how Djokovic has found a way to read and defeat Nadal's vicious spins and that Federer hasn't.

It certainly seems a simpler explanation than calling into doubt the mental strength of three amazing - and amazingly successful - players.

[RichC]

I agree with most of that, Federer definitely matches up better v Djokovic but dont agree you cant find Federer out, Nadal has, Federer has only beat him twice in 4 years (and lost 9) and both of those were when Nadal has been absolutely exhausted after marathon matches the day before. Fed is a mental midget v Rafa.

some players seem to match up better against others, Djokovic looks on a different level at the moment though

[Neil Young]

Oh yeah, just to add, they also compared Nadal's semi-final and final opponents, they said Murray and Djokovic adopt the same tactics, trying to force Nadal to drop short and attacking it for winners.

The reason Djokovic won and Murray lost is that Djokovic is a better player than Murray, for the time being at least.

Perhaps it's that simple.

[Chris]

I don't think any of these players has an issue with their mentality. They are three of the greatest players ever.

I listened to some of the final on the radio last night and it was actually quite instructive. Since they can't rely on pictures and don't have time to describe everything they have to analyse patterns of play more than you get on television (where they tend to talk about individual shots). And the story they were telling last night was, in a nutshell, about how Djokovic has found a way to read and defeat Nadal's vicious spins and that Federer hasn't.

It certainly seems a simpler explanation than calling into doubt the mental strength of three amazing - and amazingly successful - players.

Dont agree at all, Fed is fine v Nadal then he gets to break point - net, break point - net, repeat, repeat. No one is saying these dont have mental strength but everyone tends to have a nemesis. Federer has completely collapsed on big points v Rafa loads in recent years.

Just because someone is amazing it doesnt mean they are faultless or immune to mental lapses.

[Shaggy]

Agree there - the amount of easy shots (for him) Federer nets v Nadal on the big points is amazing.

[Buzzo]

One thing is for sure Andy Murray has to raise his level dramatically to compete. He is clearly the 4th best player in the world by a distance, he performs to his ranking or above at every grand slam, but last night showed the level you need to reach to win. Djokovic has managed to raise his game from 4 to 1 in the world, can Murray do the same..?

I think the one thing you notice with the top three is good or bad they stay composed on court. Murray is too emotional, all this shouting and moaning "Cmon Andy - you know how to beat this guy" is slightly amateurish. Murray has the ability, he just needs someone to coach his head. Djokovic should be his example. Djokovic was exactlly where Murray finds himself now 2 years ago and managed to progress to World Number 1, Murray has to try and do the same. Its his rotten luck to be playing with 3 of the all time greats... when you think Leyton Hewitt managed to win a Wimbledon as well.........

[Chris]

Agree there - the amount of easy shots (for him) Federer nets v Nadal on the big points is amazing.

It is seriously irritating to watch when he's your favourite player! One French Open 16 from 17 break points went awol and while some are down to great play from Nadal loads are just simple **** ups.

[Arn]

The one thing with Nadal is he adapts and tries to improve every season, when he first came out "he's just a clay courter" then it was "he'll never win Wimbledon" then it was "US courts don't suit his game". He's improved and adapted his game throughout his career thing is Djokovic has taken a huge leap this season from probably 3rd or 4th best in the world to the clear number 1 - he's going to have to really push on for next season to get back to the top.

He's done it before and 10 slams in the bag tells you he can do it whether he does though is another matter!

The slower grass at Wimbledon and US Open have helped him. It is much easier now to win all four slams than it was 10 years ago. The clay court is quicker and the grass and hard courts slower. You can almost play the same sort of tennis in all slams.

If you changed back to quicker grass at Wimbledon and slower clay at RG then no one out there would really have a realistic chance to win all four slams. Nadal would totally dominate in Paris and Federer would be almost as unbeatable in London.

[Buzzo]

The slower grass at Wimbledon and US Open have helped him. It is much easier now to win all four slams than it was 10 years ago. The clay court is quicker and the grass and hard courts slower. You can almost play the same sort of tennis in all slams.

If you changed back to quicker grass at Wimbledon and slower clay at RG then no one out there would really have a realistic chance to win all four slams. Nadal would totally dominate in Paris and Federer would be almost as unbeatable in London.

(Own up - Who has hijacked Arns keyboard?)

[mick the click]

Apart from his re-modelled serve (which was a joke around 18 months ago when he changed racquet sponsor) Djokovic is taking most returns earlier - rarely from a yard or so behind the baseline - and returning with utter conviction and stupendous power.

They were both trashed after set 3.

It was an incredible match.

[mick the click]

However, having dispatched the boy to nursery, with the missus at work and me no meetings this afternoon. I could have a 2 hour sleep window.

I have a day a bit like yours. Trouble is I always feel guilty about midweek daytime naps. Usually, just as I'm nodding off the phone goes and I'm incoherent.

[The Erectile Banana]

That was an incredible tennis match. One of the best I've ever seen.

[Neil Young]

Dont agree at all, Fed is fine v Nadal then he gets to break point - net, break point - net, repeat, repeat. No one is saying these dont have mental strength but everyone tends to have a nemesis. Federer has completely collapsed on big points v Rafa loads in recent years.

Just because someone is amazing it doesnt mean they are faultless or immune to mental lapses.

You see it as a mental lapse from Federer; I see it as mental strength from Nadal.

When Djokovic saved the first match point in the semi-final, was that mental weakness on Federer's part? Or simply awe-inspiring fortitude from Djokovic that allowed him to go for such an all-or-nothing shot on the brink of defeat?