100 Weeks at #1 for Nole

[brokenshoelace]

A 9-7 loss is now a "fifth set collapse."

 

[Kieran]

A 9-7 loss is now a "fifth set collapse."

Exactly. And had he won in five, Rafa wouldn't have collapsed, despite serving for it in the fourth...

 

[DarthFed]

Was he not up 4-2? And yes, it would have been a collapse if Rafa lost, that goes without saying.

 

[Kieran]

Was he not up 4-2? And yes, it would have been a collapse if Rafa lost, that goes without saying.

4-2 is only one break of serve - so it's not a collapse. Especially given that the set ended 9-7 for Rafa, not 6-4...

 

[DarthFed]

Was he not up 4-2? And yes, it would have been a collapse if Rafa lost, that goes without saying.

4-2 is only one break of serve - so it's not a collapse. Especially given that the set ended 9-7 for Rafa, not 6-4...

Running into the net on another feeble overhead attempt and then losing 15 minutes later qualifies as a collapse in my book. Guess I am a harsh grader

 

[Garro]

Why? He held serve three straight times after that, before making those errors in the last game.

 

[Kieran]

Was he not up 4-2? And yes, it would have been a collapse if Rafa lost, that goes without saying.

4-2 is only one break of serve - so it's not a collapse. Especially given that the set ended 9-7 for Rafa, not 6-4...

Running into the net on another feeble overhead attempt and then losing 15 minutes later qualifies as a collapse in my book. Guess I am a harsh grader

I wonder what you'd call it if he hadn't won another point from 4-2 up. A Double-Triple Collapse?

It wasn't a collapse in Paris by any realistic understanding of the word "collapse..."

 

[NADAL2005RG]

At USO, you say what can Nole do against Nadal :huh: This is hardcourts we are talking, if Nole doesn't completely go haywire at the end of the 3rd it might be a different outcome, and then we saw him literally just go away in the 4th set. Losing to Nadal on hard courts is not some quality loss, especially for Novak.

Even at the AO, Djokovic needed 6 hours to beat Nadal. Clearly, Djokovic doesn't have an edge over Nadal when they meet at hardcourt slams. Nadal leads Djokovic 2-1 at US Open. Djokovic leads Nadal 1-0 at AO. In addition, Nadal beat Djokovic on the fast hardcourt at 2008 Olympics. So surely it is true that Djokovic losing to Nadal on hardcourts is indeed a very quality loss.

 

[DarthFed]

Was he not up 4-2? And yes, it would have been a collapse if Rafa lost, that goes without saying.

4-2 is only one break of serve - so it's not a collapse. Especially given that the set ended 9-7 for Rafa, not 6-4...

Running into the net on another feeble overhead attempt and then losing 15 minutes later qualifies as a collapse in my book. Guess I am a harsh grader

I wonder what you'd call it if he hadn't won another point from 4-2 up. A Double-Triple Collapse?

It wasn't a collapse in Paris by any realistic understanding of the word "collapse..."

I'd call it a collapse. Up a break late in the set and then you lose, and said match includes a pivotal point where a professional athlete basically takes out the whole net going for a put away. What do you call it? Great play?

 

[Kieran]

I'd call it a collapse. Up a break late in the set and then you lose, and said match includes a pivotal point where a professional athlete basically takes out the whole net going for a put away. What do you call it? Great play?

He played one lousy point - and he won the next one after it. And the set went on for another 9 games after that game. You'd really have to give me a good definition of the word "collapse" to say that Djoker collapsed in that set. If he'd not won a single point after, then yes, he collapsed. But not a 9-7 set and I think if you understand what the word "collapse" really means, you'll agree with me.

It's actually insulting to Rafa to say that although Novak collapsed at 4-2 up, it still took him so long to finish him off...

 

[DarthFed]

I'd call it a collapse. Up a break late in the set and then you lose, and said match includes a pivotal point where a professional athlete basically takes out the whole net going for a put away. What do you call it? Great play?

He played one lousy point - and he won the next one after it. And the set went on for another 9 games after that game. You'd really have to give me a good definition of the word "collapse" to say that Djoker collapsed in that set. If he'd not won a single point after, then yes, he collapsed. But not a 9-7 set and I think if you understand what the word "collapse" really means, you'll agree with me.

It's actually insulting to Rafa to say that although Novak collapsed at 4-2 up, it still took him so long to finish him off...

Yes, I clearly don't understand what "collapsing" means. I guess to you it is becoming a stone pigeon and losing every point from 4-2 up. If Djokovic lost 7-5 would that be a collapse in your book? He would have lost 5 of the last 6 games instead of 7 of the last 10. The former just sounds like a bit bigger collapse to me but they both meet the same criteria. And clearly you know the difference between a "lousy point" and a point where the pressure clearly got the better of him and caused him to do the unthinkable. 15 minutes later he was in the locker room fresh off the "non-collapse"

 

[NADAL2005RG]

What were the odds of Nadal not breaking Djokovic in the 5th set at Roland Garros? Should come as no surprise that Djokovic lost the 4-2 lead. Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set, so regardless of whether Djokovic fell on the net, Nadal was taking plenty away from Djokovic. Likewise, when people say Nadal "choked" in the 5th set of 2012 AO.....Nadal was up 4-2 at the AO, and then got broken. Again, what are the odds of Djokovic not breaking Nadal in a 5th set at the AO (Djokovic's favorite slam)? And the so-called 'sitter backhand' that Nadal missed was not a game point, it was merely a point which took the score from 30-15 to 30-30. And I've seen Nadal miss many backhands like that before, by the way, those short balls where Nadal is running forward and plays the ball on the run.....misses them plenty (on clay too). Bottom line, neither of the 5th sets were collapses or chokes.

 

[DarthFed]

What were the odds of Nadal not breaking Djokovic in the 5th set at Roland Garros? Should come as no surprise that Djokovic lost the 4-2 lead. Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set, so regardless of whether Djokovic fell on the net, Nadal was taking plenty away from Djokovic. Likewise, when people say Nadal "choked" in the 5th set of 2012 AO.....Nadal was up 4-2 at the AO, and then got broken. Again, what are the odds of Djokovic not breaking Nadal in a 5th set at the AO (Djokovic's favorite slam)? And the so-called 'sitter backhand' that Nadal missed was not a game point, it was merely a point which took the score from 30-15 to 30-30. And I've seen Nadal miss many backhands like that before, by the way, those short balls where Nadal is running forward and plays the ball on the run.....misses them plenty (on clay too). Bottom line, neither of the 5th sets were collapses or chokes.

Well reasoned post and both matches are strikingly similar. I'd call both of those matches a "fifth set collapse" with the defining moments being the Nadal sitter in AO and Djoker net plow in RG. Neither of those points would have guaranteed victory but they certainly hastened defeat after being in winning positions. Guess it comes down to definition of a "collapse" in tennis. I could have the same argument in all the other sports I watch and there'd be a fair share who will disagree.

 

[Kieran]

I'd call it a collapse. Up a break late in the set and then you lose, and said match includes a pivotal point where a professional athlete basically takes out the whole net going for a put away. What do you call it? Great play?

He played one lousy point - and he won the next one after it. And the set went on for another 9 games after that game. You'd really have to give me a good definition of the word "collapse" to say that Djoker collapsed in that set. If he'd not won a single point after, then yes, he collapsed. But not a 9-7 set and I think if you understand what the word "collapse" really means, you'll agree with me.

It's actually insulting to Rafa to say that although Novak collapsed at 4-2 up, it still took him so long to finish him off...

Yes, I clearly don't understand what "collapsing" means. I guess to you it is becoming a stone pigeon and losing every point from 4-2 up. If Djokovic lost 7-5 would that be a collapse in your book? He would have lost 5 of the last 6 games instead of 7 of the last 10. The former just sounds like a bit bigger collapse to me but they both meet the same criteria. And clearly you know the difference between a "lousy point" and a point where the pressure clearly got the better of him and caused him to do the unthinkable. 15 minutes later he was in the locker room fresh off the "non-collapse"

Exactly. Now you're getting it, though not quite. The pressure got to him on that point.

And he won the very next point.

And he battled through the disappointment of losing that game to scrap it until he lost 9-7. It was close in the end, in other words - and certainly not a collapse.

Unless every single fifth set ever played, that involved a player breaking back, is a collapse by their opponent, no matter how slowly or indiscernably they collapse. Here's a definition of the word "collapse" to help you along...

 

[huntingyou]

At USO, you say what can Nole do against Nadal :huh: This is hardcourts we are talking, if Nole doesn't completely go haywire at the end of the 3rd it might be a different outcome, and then we saw him literally just go away in the 4th set. Losing to Nadal on hard courts is not some quality loss, especially for Novak.

This is where you always miss the plot, especially with Rafa. There are no scripts to follow in tennis, the mere fact the match takes places on a HC.....it doesn't give Novak the desicive advantage. At the end of the day it comes to who is the better tennis player........match-ups, surfaces, weather; things that although relevant are not impacting enough to swing a match one way or another. That's where Rafa's greatness surpass his peers; not only he takes advantage of what clay has to offer him but he goes to the othe guy backyard and take his lunch as well. Thus, THE BETTER PLAYER

 

[NADAL2005RG]

And now the US Open is Nadal's backyard more than Djokovic's backyard. Nadal has 2 US Opens and a 2-1 record vs Djokovic at the US Open. Not only that, Nadal tied the service record when he won in 2010, and set a new service record when he won in 2013. So there really is an aura developing at the US Open.

 

[DarthFed]

I'd call it a collapse. Up a break late in the set and then you lose, and said match includes a pivotal point where a professional athlete basically takes out the whole net going for a put away. What do you call it? Great play?

He played one lousy point - and he won the next one after it. And the set went on for another 9 games after that game. You'd really have to give me a good definition of the word "collapse" to say that Djoker collapsed in that set. If he'd not won a single point after, then yes, he collapsed. But not a 9-7 set and I think if you understand what the word "collapse" really means, you'll agree with me.

It's actually insulting to Rafa to say that although Novak collapsed at 4-2 up, it still took him so long to finish him off...

Yes, I clearly don't understand what "collapsing" means. I guess to you it is becoming a stone pigeon and losing every point from 4-2 up. If Djokovic lost 7-5 would that be a collapse in your book? He would have lost 5 of the last 6 games instead of 7 of the last 10. The former just sounds like a bit bigger collapse to me but they both meet the same criteria. And clearly you know the difference between a "lousy point" and a point where the pressure clearly got the better of him and caused him to do the unthinkable. 15 minutes later he was in the locker room fresh off the "non-collapse"

Exactly. Now you're getting it, though not quite. The pressure got to him on that point.

And he won the very next point.

And he battled through the disappointment of losing that game to scrap it until he lost 9-7. It was close in the end, in other words - and certainly not a collapse.

Unless every single fifth set ever played, that involved a player breaking back, is a collapse by their opponent, no matter how slowly or indiscernably they collapse. Here's a definition of the word "collapse" to help you along...

Scrapping through a few games doesn't mean it wasn't a collapse. You just have a narrow definition of the word, none of the ones you provided has a definition for sports since there really isn't one. He was 6 points from victory and would've been 5 if he didn't barge into the net like a 15 year old who got drunk for the first time. He was never winning the match after that...and prolonged the defeat all of 8 games after it. Collapse in my book but please do provide me more Merriam style definitions...

 

[DarthFed]

At USO, you say what can Nole do against Nadal :huh: This is hardcourts we are talking, if Nole doesn't completely go haywire at the end of the 3rd it might be a different outcome, and then we saw him literally just go away in the 4th set. Losing to Nadal on hard courts is not some quality loss, especially for Novak.

This is where you always miss the plot, especially with Rafa. There are no scripts to follow in tennis, the mere fact the match takes places on a HC.....it doesn't give Novak the desicive advantage. At the end of the day it comes to who is the better tennis player........match-ups, surfaces, weather; things that although relevant are not impacting enough to swing a match one way or another. That's where Rafa's greatness surpass his peers; not only he takes advantage of what clay has to offer him but he goes to the othe guy backyard and take his lunch as well. Thus, THE BETTER PLAYER

That's all well and good but doesn't have much to do with anything given the context of the discussion. El Dude makes it sound like Novak wasn't dreadful in the US Open and should be satisfied to get drilled by Rafa in the final. Novak IS a better hard court player than Rafa and has won most of their matches on that surface, so we are not talking about someone who should be satisfied with getting trounced in the USO final. Short of 30 minutes at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd, Novak barely won a game. Now naturally you will say he played the match of his life but has no hope against Nadal on any surface, but I beg to differ. I've seen it all before when talking Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 specifically.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

At USO, you say what can Nole do against Nadal :huh: This is hardcourts we are talking, if Nole doesn't completely go haywire at the end of the 3rd it might be a different outcome, and then we saw him literally just go away in the 4th set. Losing to Nadal on hard courts is not some quality loss, especially for Novak.

This is where you always miss the plot, especially with Rafa. There are no scripts to follow in tennis, the mere fact the match takes places on a HC.....it doesn't give Novak the desicive advantage. At the end of the day it comes to who is the better tennis player........match-ups, surfaces, weather; things that although relevant are not impacting enough to swing a match one way or another. That's where Rafa's greatness surpass his peers; not only he takes advantage of what clay has to offer him but he goes to the othe guy backyard and take his lunch as well. Thus, THE BETTER PLAYER

That's all well and good but doesn't have much to do with anything given the context of the discussion. El Dude makes it sound like Novak wasn't dreadful in the US Open and should be satisfied to get drilled by Rafa in the final. Novak IS a better hard court player than Rafa and has won most of their matches on that surface, so we are not talking about someone who should be satisfied with getting trounced in the USO final. Short of 30 minutes at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd, Novak barely won a game. Now naturally you will say he played the match of his life but has no hope against Nadal on any surface, but I beg to differ. I've seen it all before when talking Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 specifically.

The day before the 2013 US Open final, who did you consider the favorite to win? And given they've only met once at the Australian Open, and it went 6 hours, who do you think is more likely to win the AO next year if they meet again?

 

[DarthFed]

At USO, you say what can Nole do against Nadal :huh: This is hardcourts we are talking, if Nole doesn't completely go haywire at the end of the 3rd it might be a different outcome, and then we saw him literally just go away in the 4th set. Losing to Nadal on hard courts is not some quality loss, especially for Novak.

This is where you always miss the plot, especially with Rafa. There are no scripts to follow in tennis, the mere fact the match takes places on a HC.....it doesn't give Novak the desicive advantage. At the end of the day it comes to who is the better tennis player........match-ups, surfaces, weather; things that although relevant are not impacting enough to swing a match one way or another. That's where Rafa's greatness surpass his peers; not only he takes advantage of what clay has to offer him but he goes to the othe guy backyard and take his lunch as well. Thus, THE BETTER PLAYER

That's all well and good but doesn't have much to do with anything given the context of the discussion. El Dude makes it sound like Novak wasn't dreadful in the US Open and should be satisfied to get drilled by Rafa in the final. Novak IS a better hard court player than Rafa and has won most of their matches on that surface, so we are not talking about someone who should be satisfied with getting trounced in the USO final. Short of 30 minutes at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd, Novak barely won a game. Now naturally you will say he played the match of his life but has no hope against Nadal on any surface, but I beg to differ. I've seen it all before when talking Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 specifically.

The day before the 2013 US Open final, who did you consider the favorite to win? And given they've only met once at the Australian Open, and it went 6 hours, who do you think is more likely to win the AO next year if they meet again?

I picked Murray to beat Nole in Wimbledon, I picked Nadal to win the USO final and if they meet at AO I'd pick Nadal to win again. Reason being is that Nole is weak in the big matches the last 2 years. Simple as that. Until he beats one of them on the big stage again why bet on him.