The last, as it turned out

The last time Federer would make a grand slam semi final, and his last AO appearance.. not that we knew it at the time. This was also just before the covid pandemic although Federer was sitting out injured after this event anyway. We just live in the moment a lot and don't realise how good things are until they're gone.

+Christopher Gaffney I know right? Just watched a 13.5 utr player in person yesterday and it seems like him and the other players hit with so much more intensity and pace than these pros on TV lol

To his standards, it wasn't tbh

@@eyeofhorus1301 court level view will help with what intensity top players play lol, courts seem super fast from this view and on tv......

@@tanmaywadhwa211 I mean even this video it looks like Djokovic/Federer are playing pretty effortlessly and not trying that hard not nearly as intense as those kids in real life

Yes indeed. I was at the Wimbledon QF's, Nishikori v Federer, Djokovic v Goffin. The ball was very fast.. I was very close.. Closer than this view.

He seems to struggle a lot more on faster surfaces. The slowed surfaces of this era have been perfect for him.

@@jollyjames30 This surface right here is fast.

@@jollyjames30 that’s hilarious because he plays best on the two fastest surfaces, AO hardcourt and grass. Nice try tho.

@@mikemoggerson6651 grass is a specialized surface that many good hardcourters struggle on like Medvedev and zverev.

@@jollyjames30 the two slowest majors of the year are the Us open and French open. Djokovic has struggled there compared to the two faster majors, therefore nullifying your point. Your response didn’t make any sense either.

Tennis is totally different watching live. Looks more real. Some things on TV look unimaginable.

Federer is actually such a hard hitter that it seems all the power back to federer side comes from his previous hits

they show how hard everyone else hits but not how hard Djokovic hits?

@@TheRafaelBond the word "actually" denotes that he doesn't seem like a player who hits hard.

Agree

What's so special about it? Most of the pace comes from the racquet and strings. If you go to a local tennis court, you'll see 8 year old girls blasting the fuzz off the ball.

A lot of it is using your body's momentum to move into the shot. That along with the right footwork and holding the racket loosely so that there's a huge flick of the wrist that's kinda hard to see, among other things, creates quite the power with not a whole lot of arm strength compared to what we would think would be necessary and therefore relative effort involved. There's also the fact that these guys are athletes and can make huge strength-requiring movements seem easy

@@jollyjames30 no, racket and strings will help, but it starts with the movement of the body and arm itself

Because simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

@@jollyjames30 You are clearly not a tennisplayer. You have got no idea what you're talking about xD

Exactly what I thought, the pace is incredibly. Which is why the more straight on it feels like the ball is just floating in air comparatively. But I guess you see the angles better straight on. I still prefer this view or maybe splitting the difference hah

Roger's movement looks slow and form jagged in this video, don't know what you're talking about.

Hlo Wivo, my favourite Tennis channel

TV guy here... we hear this a lot. And this is the case of "people think they want this, but really they won't". Main reason being view from this angle gets tiring for the viewer after a few minutes. Ability to see the ball is also worse because when ball travels the screen horizontally it covers longer distance in a single video frame, this means ball is more blurry. Almost twice as much vs the traditional camera angle. Directors around the world do try to incorporate more dynamics angles into their broadcasts.... and enthusiasts always want to see more, more energy, speed, rotations etc. But it is all about finding a balance between showing all this and general watching experience for the casual viewer.

I never imagine it to be this bad. The only group (6-7 guys?) supporting him in that section was what I presume to be Serbians... This is a huge shame because he deserves way more respect outside of Serbia.

If you think this is a crazy amount of crowd support for Federer you should have heard it at the 2018 US Open when he played Nick Kyrgios. Raucous applause for almost every point, and the friekin roof almost came off when he broke serve or won a set point

Very fascinating, downright RIVETING points! You blew my mind. So much so that I couldn't read more than two lines of it

This court is faster than most courts of the 2000s.

He got some support from them but federer had the overall crowd support. Although that dissipated pretty quickly after Djokovic took control of the match

Ben Parsons, you obviously don’t understand figurative speech. Obviously he has support, but it’s very small compared to when he plays Federer.

The most efficient slider of the game ever exists. Although my gentleman and idol Federer might be unbeatable in his peak days, Djokovic has lasted his prime longer than anyone else, incredibly. In terms of achievements, he's simply an undisputed god of this sport.

+Toni Georg wish he would've warred with 2004 Federer it'd be sick, or 2005

Federer level set 1 was perfect

@@eyeofhorus1301 Federer increased his level once Novak and Rafa entered scene. Just watch those matches between Novak, Rafa and Roger from 2010-2015 (after that Roger's body couldn't handle that tempo anymore), it's just another level. Roger never had to play on that level against Safin, Roddick and Nalbandian.

@@perakojot5628 Watching Federers career highlights he had so many super amazing perfect shots when he was young and he was clearly speedier more athletic better timing better reflexes.

@@eyeofhorus1301 He was faster back then for sure. But his accuracy, technique and movement improved later. Look at these young guys now who r still under 22,23... They can run, they hit hard but they need to work on shot selection and tactics

yeah, tv should take inspiration from this

The guy who filmed this vídeo were several rows behind and above from the court level, wasn't he?

Because not everybody was able to push him hard as Federer ever did. You should look for their rivalry battles in 2011 in which there were even more aggressive rallies between both.

Sorry to hear, I’m sure he will play a post-retirement exhibition at some point that you could maybe attend!

Lol he is.39 years old you dipshit

Dumbo. Federer was injured coming into and throughout this match and his movement was not even 50%. He said that he was glad that he was able to just finish the match...Even Djokovic lauded Roger for finishing this match despite being injured....

​@@akshayabhatia2384djokovic won ao while being injured, cry more

​@@akshayabhatia2384Cope and cry

It's undefinable that Novak was at the same level as an aging Federer that year.

how is he toe to toe if he loses to straight sets lol 7-6 6-4 6-3 lmao

LOL and lose in straight sets?@@andreaho

@@GauravBaruah-br1xu he was suffering from back injury mate. Just a match before federer defeated Novak in straights.

TV guy here... we hear this a lot. And this is the case of "people think they want this, but really they won't". Main reason being view from this angle gets tiring for the viewer after a few minutes. Ability to see the ball is also worse because when ball travels the screen horizontally it covers longer distance in a single video frame, this means ball is more blurry. Almost twice as much vs the traditional camera angle. Directors around the world do try to incorporate more dynamics angles into their broadcasts.... and enthusiasts always want to see more, more energy, speed, rotations etc. But it is all about finding a balance between showing all this and general watching experience for the casual viewer.

@@jeffsaffron5647 good technical explanation. in this day and age of streaming on demand, this should ALSO be an option to view at any angle desired for multitude of user groups. those who want to view, should be able to view in this angle.

TV guy here... we hear this a lot. And this is the case of "people think they want this, but really they won't". Main reason being view from this angle gets tiring for the viewer after a few minutes. Ability to see the ball is also worse because when ball travels the screen horizontally it covers longer distance in a single video frame, this means ball is more blurry. Almost twice as much vs the traditional camera angle. Directors around the world do try to incorporate more dynamics angles into their broadcasts.... and enthusiasts always want to see more, more energy, speed, rotations etc. But it is all about finding a balance between showing all this and general watching experience for the casual viewer.

@@jeffsaffron5647 Hi Jeff, I take your point; it's all about balance in the coverage, as you rightly say. It's about 80% to 20 in favour of the arial view at present, and it would benefit from being more like 70 to 30 I think. The ball's hard to track from whatever angle. Personally, I prefer to have the experience of being close to the match, as if I'm sitting court-side, up close and personal as it were, rather than being a detached spectator looking down on the action from high above.

@@brenhugh yea it is definitely a different experience being there in person seeing it live. No matter the camera angle there are always tradeoffs as we're projecting 3D scene into 2D screen. There is also a huge aspect i haven't touched upon and that being advertisers, in this particular case KIA payed a huge money for their logo being visible entire match (probably whole tournament). These main sponsors really like the straight camera angle which shows their logo with no distortion.

@@jeffsaffron5647 That makes sense. I hadn't though of that. They don't have to worry about that at Wimbledon at least. As long as Rolex can see their logo, then everything's fine ⌚

The slowed surfaces never favoured an aggressive attacker's style of play. It's why Berdych, Del Potro and the big hitters can't hit through these courts. It's more designed for the baseline defenders. That's why so many clay courters tend to do so well on hards and grass nowadays since the surfaces are all slowed.

@@jollyjames30 Couldn't agree more. The tour wanted to have the same players playing well on all grand slams, so we almost always see the same players every time.

Roger was playing with an injured knee here though. No wonder he wasn’t moving too well. The first set was good but after that he could barely run to the forehand side.

@@jollyjames30 actually it was more the introduction of type 1, 2, 3 tennis balls on the ATP tour that homogenised the game

Dude, Federer got beaten by better players, the idea that courts were manipulated is a fantasy

🦭

@@chrisrox112 🐨

Ur not a 12.5 UTR stop capping 💀

@@thiagogocrazy7234 look it up my friend

@@thiagogocrazy7234 probably not anymore cause I stopped playing but at least 12.30

@@thiagogocrazy7234 and still the point of my message was to give an idea of how hard it is Not to flex about my UTR which can be so much better honestly So focus on the message and that’s it If you are too intrigued about if it’s fake or not (my rating) you are more than welcome to look it up any day literally

Well, unbelievable winners from Roger. Unbelievable defence from Novak. But in the end aggression always pays off when you have a weapon like Roger’s forehand was at its peak (when it was also on faster courts and faster balls).

That 's true, especially on the forehand side he hit really deep, hard and so consistent; he can go toe to toe with Fed, Nadal who arguably have the best forehand

Totally agree..

nah, fed after 2019 wimby loss was out forever. That loss basically sent was the icing on the cake for his career!

@@GauravBaruah-br1xu y'all Djoker fanboys act like ATP Finals 2019 never happened 😹 Yeah man, "finished" looks different...