[duong]

Luck is very important in tennis competition, and I think many people don't accept it because they like thinking of life "you always get what you deserve" ... it's more comfortable thinking like that, that it's always fair in the end.

All of the players benefit from luck.

As a Fedfan, I can say that Federer had a lot a lot of luck in his carreer, even more than others especially because as a one-hander, sometimes missed shots or half-missed shots like returns just behind the net ... become very hard to deal for the opponent.

It happened to him very often.

And he knows it.

People have often said that Fed was a sore loser during interviews because he spoke about luck about his opponent who won.

But if you want to be fair, if you read his interviews regularly as I do, he very often says "I was lucky" when he wins as well.

Personally I like that he's the player who speaks most about luck in tennis ... because I think it's a real face of tennis : luck is very important (I also accept thinking about it more in life than most of the people).

Something else people don't understand about him is his "positive attitude" : "it was OK, I played well" and so on ... that's his way to stay optimistic and positive and keep energy for the future. Many people laugh about autosuggestion method (we call that "method of doctor Coué" in France) but it has been proved by many many studies that it IS really very effective.

When people think of young Federer often being negative on court then working with a psychologist and becoming what he has become, I think they should understand that this autosuggestion method played a big role in his success.

"Confidence" which is often used in tennis, and which has often been said as the main key of Djokovic's success last year is just another way to create autosuggestion ... and when Djokovic hit that shot on match point, I do think that he did believe in himself a lot, it was not the shot of someone who had accepted his loss as some said, and as Fed seemingly said : he badly wanted to win and hit that shot full of this willingness.

However, this shot not only implied a great deal of autosuggestion, it also implied a great deal of luck too.

Because yes, luck is very important in competitive tennis. Also with the draws and so on because match-ups are also very important in tennis ...

[Hewitt =Legend]

Luck has nothing to do with Nole's success.

We the audience are lucky to watch him perform however.

Ajde.

[ssin]

I think Murray, Rafa and Fed were lucky to get to the 5th set. Tons of luck.

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by ssin

I think Murray, Rafa and Fed were lucky to get to the 5th set. Tons of luck.

lol, I don't really believe in luck really. it's all skills. I mean sure, we all get 'lucky' sometimes but still... think about it... Djokovic has worked very hard to achieve everything... it paid off.

[Felipe Abe]

I think that match point against Federer at USO was such a luck lol.

[ssin]

Originally Posted by Alex999

lol, I don't really believe in luck really. it's all skills. I mean sure, we all get 'lucky' sometimes but still... think about it... Djokovic has worked very hard to achieve everything... it paid off.

There is luck and I was half joking, half serious. We can actually calculate probability of things, so we could do that for things in tennis as well. Say you are lucky if you win lottery, because your odds were very thin. You did it against the odds. Novak did nothing of the sorts, imo... I don't think Novak was lucky to win the matches, I agree with you. Luck exists, but in tennis it's very close to being entirely irrelevant.

[StatRacket]

There is luck all over the place in tennis.

Draws, let cords, bad line calls, injuries, schedule, weather, crowd, inconsistent umpiring, strength of peers, 'stretching the rules' (coach umpiring, time between points), even the toss!

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by StatRacket

There is luck all over the place in tennis.

Draws, let cords, bad line calls, injuries, schedule, weather, crowd, inconsistent umpiring, strength of peers, 'stretching the rules' (coach umpiring, time between points), even the toss!

I get your point and it's cool but this is life. it's what players have to deal with on a regular basis. I still wouldn't call it luck. many guys here call that shot at the USO (Nole vs. Fed) lucky. whatever. Novak simply played better and won.

[paseo]

Originally Posted by StatRacket

There is luck all over the place in tennis.

Draws, let cords, bad line calls, injuries, schedule, weather, crowd, inconsistent umpiring, strength of peers, 'stretching the rules' (coach umpiring, time between points), even the toss!

This.

Like I said, luck is a big factor in sports. If you play tennis, or any other sport, you would understand this.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Alex999

Novak simply played better and won.

I think Novak was the better player in that match ... but he might have lost it anyway, for a few centimeters.

Usually, despite the luck involved, the better player wins.

But it's not always true.

And even the concept of "the better player" is not always clear when players are so near

[thrust]

Originally Posted by blank_frackis

There's plenty of luck in tennis. When it gets down to a single point here or there then the match can go either way. If Nadal puts that easy shot away at 30-15, for instance, there's nothing Djokovic could have done about it.

So yes, I think Djokovic has had a little bit of luck. He could have easily lost these matches and he didn't just win them because of mental strength.

Confident players take risks in bad situations. Novak won those matches because he was good enough then to take successful risks and WIN the points that enabled him to stay in those matches, in order to win them. Few, if any, matches are won due to luck.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by paseo

This.

Like I said, luck is a big factor in sports. If you play tennis, or any other sport, you would understand this.

If a let cord turns into a winning shot, it is because the shot was good enough to go over the net despite the fact that it hit the net. Luck has nothing to do with it. If the ball does not go over the net it is because the shot was not hit well enough to do so, whether it hit the net or not.

[pray-for-palestine-and-israel]

nadal 100% choked in the 5th at the AO

he had a break up, and he missed a sitter- biggest choke in the last few years

mentally he's completley lost in vs nole

i know we can all smile at the irony on display considering whats happened in the past

but i still feel bad for rafa- he tries really hard

[fivebargate]

Originally Posted by latso

considering that he has in the range of 3-4 more RGs booked

Booked? Lol....at the moment he will be doing well to get 1. Let's just wait and see.

[Alex999]

Originally Posted by tennis-hero

nadal 100% choked in the 5th at the AO

he had a break up, and he missed a sitter- biggest choke in the last few years

mentally he's completley lost in vs nole

i know we can all smile at the irony on display considering whats happened in the past

but i still feel bad for rafa- he tries really hard

again, with all respect, Nadal did not choke at all. Djokovic simply played better. Nadal played great. yes, the match was very close but it has nothing to do with luck. Novak outplayed Rafa and that's it.