Roger Federer v. Novak Djokovic WTF worse than any John Isner match

As we know by precedent no match in which by a large margin errors outnumber winners can be a quality match. I mean do we not remember the howls of outrage after AO 2012 and the error festivals of Murray v. Djoko or Nadal v. Djoko? How often have we heard that despite classic confrontations in Rome and at Australia how boring Djoko v. Murray matches are because of the winner to unforced errors ratio? I mean watching Murray play Djoko is slightly more pleasurable and fan friendly than watching 80 year olds having sex, at least that is the V2 party line. Well by the new metric of measuring a match's quality; winners to unforced errors, Djokovic v. Federer was an abysmal failure. Roger Federer was -12 winners to UEs and Djokovic was -9. What is more relevant is that this match is indoors so the winner numbers should be through the roof.

Additionally, this match fails on another major metric of quality attacking tennis. Too many breaks of serve, serving indoors Roger Federer in two sets was broken 4 times. What is this the WTA? A total of 7 breaks of serve in two sets. Hey Rog and Novak, what is wrong ladies having troubling serving in those frilly skirts? I mean how many times have Novak and Nadal or Novak and Murray matches been talked down because of WTA style serving, and at indoor tournament as well.

Well since the new metrics of winners to UEs and total breaks are integral to the quality of the match the World Tour finals was an epic fail. But for some odd reason we haven't heard from the purists, the true believers of attack tennis. You can bet your last dollar if Andy Murray hit 30 winners against 42 errors against Novak Djokovic the purists would have a field day bemoaning the death of attacking tennis and the two talentless grinders who are only winning as a result of slow conditions. Therefore I would like all of the tennis purists to apply their own criteria for match quality fairly. By the attack tennis purists' idea of quality three things seem to always be mentioned: 1. number of shots per point average 2. winners to unforced errors 3. Number of breaks. Well then if this is the new way to measure match quality and entertainment the greatest and most watchable player in history is John Isner. Virtually every John Isner match features short points, few breaks, and more winners than errors. Now of course I could hit a short forehand by john isner after 4 stiff vodka tonics but that doesn't matter. Forget Laver, forget Sampras, forget fed; nobody lets a routine forehand through the court like Isner or Karlovic, now that is quality my friends. I just wonder where were the attack tennis purists denouncing the horrific display we witnessed from fed in particular and Djokovic as well?

Don't worry Socal. Feel free to tag this cute post of yours onto one of our much acclaimed articles. That way, you'll guarantee a strong readership.

Good effort though.

Yes well I guess you are right Hans, your articles are much better received so I will try to be the opening act to your headline show.