2014 Masters Series Rome Final: Djokovic v. Nadal

[masterclass]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Roland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Impressive, as you imply. Whether or not he wins to tomorrow that means he has 32 titles on hard courts and grass. Also impressive.

Wrong. He does not have that many titles from clay and grass. He has many other clay
titles coming from various sundry tourneys not listed above. I just said I can list these
32 titles without having to look up anywhere, that's all. Those are not his only clay titles.

As I clearly pointed out above...
No need to gang up on Moxie, GSM ... :nono

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anybody think this match will have a bearing on Paris, if they meet there?

Yes, mainly from a confidence perspective, rather than form.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Roland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Impressive, as you imply. Whether or not he wins to tomorrow that means he has 32 titles on hard courts and grass. Also impressive.

Well, considering that these are not the only clay titles he's won that's not entirely true (you have Madrid, Hamburg, South American clay tourneys, etc...). But yeah, it's not as lopsided as most like to (mis)lead you to believe once you get past the "meaningless" clay titles (ie non Masters 1000 events and such).

 

[Fiero425]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Roland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Impressive, as you imply. Whether or not he wins to tomorrow that means he has 32 titles on hard courts and grass. Also impressive.

Well, considering that these are not the only clay titles he's won that's not entirely true (you have Madrid, Hamburg, South American clay tourneys, etc...). But yeah, it's not as lopsided as most like to (mis)lead you to believe once you get past the "meaningless" clay titles (ie non Masters 1000 events and such).

Well that was a complete contradiction; "meaningless clay titles" which obviously unbalances what you just said! uzzled :nono :huh: - Come on! :angel:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Roland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Impressive, as you imply. Whether or not he wins to tomorrow that means he has 32 titles on hard courts and grass. Also impressive.

Well, considering that these are not the only clay titles he's won that's not entirely true (you have Madrid, Hamburg, South American clay tourneys, etc...). But yeah, it's not as lopsided as most like to (mis)lead you to believe once you get past the "meaningless" clay titles (ie non Masters 1000 events and such).

Well that was a complete contradiction; "meaningless clay titles" which obviously unbalances what you just said! uzzled :nono :huh: - Come on! :angel:

Not really but I wouldn't bother explaining that to you. Also take a hint from the quotation marks around "meaningless."

 

[masterclass]

Just stick to the facts.

Hope you are joking...no title is meaningless.
Not to mention Hamburg was a masters event through 2008.

I wonder who got Hamburg downgraded? The tournament had so much history behind it (starting in 1892), and for Madrid to replace it, was a joke, no?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just stick to the facts.

Hope you are joking...no title is meaningless.
Not to mention Hamburg was a masters event through 2009 and Madrid always.

I wonder who got Hamburg downgraded? The tournament had so much history behind it, and for Madrid to replace it, was a joke, no?

Respectfully,
masterclass

Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless. Quotation marks around meaningless.

I also never referred to Hamburg as meaningless. What gave you that idea? I specifically mentioned how "meaningless" refers to the non Masters 1000 events (again, QUOTATION MARKS, meaning I don't actually believe that they're meaningless). And since you just informed us all what we already know, that Hamburg was a Masters 1000 event, how could I be saying that it's meaningless? When Nadal won it, it was a Masters event.

 

[masterclass]

Why even mention that last sentence then? It is clearly baiting. And misleading taken in context with the rest of your post where you clearly mention Hamburg and Madrid. Then toss off the non-Masters events. So yeah, it's your last sentence that is clearly objectionable. Everything else has already been said, at least twice, once by me, once by GSM.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[zalvar]

Don't underestimate the Serena-Rafa combo. Last year French, US, Master 1000s.
Let's go Rafa!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why even mention that last sentence then? It is clearly baiting.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Sigh... I give up.

And if it's "clearly" baiting, how about not taking the bait? Just an idea...

 

[masterclass]

Because I like to call it out for what it is, and not ignore it or dismiss it.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[masterclass]

Anyway, this conversation is all clearly off topic. If someone wants, it can even be deleted as off topic.

Back on topic, does anyone know why the match today is during the day? It seems to be a bit of a disadvantage for the one who played the night match yesterday.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Kieran]

I wondered the same myself. Fortunately, Rafa wasn't long about his business with Grigor, but he's had a busy week. Playing less than twenty hours after the semi smacks of poor scheduling...

 

[zalvar]

I wondered the same myself. Fortunately, Rafa wasn't long about his business with Grigor, but he's had a busy week. Playing less than twenty hours after the semi smacks of poor scheduling...

I was worried about that as well until I looked and saw that Nole also played three three-setters. Add the fact that he played double the time Rafa did yesterday, it should be sorta kinda even. haha.

 

[Kieran]

I wondered the same myself. Fortunately, Rafa wasn't long about his business with Grigor, but he's had a busy week. Playing less than twenty hours after the semi smacks of poor scheduling...

I was worried about that as well until I looked and saw that Nole also played three three-setters. Add the fact that he played double the time Rafa did yesterday, it should be sorta kinda even. haha.

We'll see. If Rafa loses I'm claiming this as a reason, not an excuse... :snigger

 

[TsarMatt]

I'm in a predicament...

Do I stay up to 12:00am tonight, watch this match and then get up the same day or do I just watch the replay? The thing is, seeing a replay is NEVER the same. I hate it because the whole world knows who won but me. It's not just as exciting.

Ugh, I hate it when tennis is in Europe.

 

[Kieran]

I'm gonna miss the bloody match, I thought it was an evening kick off and arranged to meet friends in the afternoon... :nono

 

[TsarMatt]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Rolland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Not sure if this is supposed to be used in a disparaging way, but that's awfully impressive. Talk about consistency and 'owning' territory.

A lot of people like to talk about Nadal's 'monopoly' on clay and how it has skewed his image, but I disagree with it. Yes, a lot of Nadal's titles have been on the dirt, but he is also a very accomplished player on both grass and the hard-courts. I mean, you don't win 2 USOs, 1 AO and 2 Wimbledon's from nothing. Also, last year he pretty much exceeded all expectations. I remember him winning Indian Wells pretty much out of the blue -- that was his first HC tournament in nearly a year and people had absolutely no idea how his knee would hold up. Then he casually wins the North American HC swing, and this includes Cincinnati, one of the fastest courts on tour.

Hell, take away all the clay titles Nadal has won and he is still freakishly good. Nadal has played impeccable tennis, across all surfaces, pretty much year-in-year-out for some time now.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Rolland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Not sure if this is supposed to be used in a disparaging way, but that's awfully impressive. Talk about consistency and 'owning' territory.

A lot of people like to talk about Nadal's 'monopoly' on clay and how it has skewed his image, but I disagree with it. Yes, a lot of Nadal's titles have been on the dirt, but he is also a very accomplished player on both grass and the hard-courts. I mean, you don't win 2 USOs, 1 AO and 2 Wimbledon's from nothing. Also, last year he pretty much exceeded all expectations. I remember him winning Indian Wells pretty much out of the blue -- that was his first HC tournament in nearly a year and people had absolutely no idea how his knee would hold up. Then he casually wins the North American HC swing, and this includes Cincinnati, one of the fastest courts on tour.

Hell, take away all the clay titles Nadal has won and he is still freakishly good. Nadal has played impeccable tennis, across all surfaces, pretty much year-in-year-out for some time now.

TsarMatt, Rafa will always be the other one, not the one that your patents wanted you to bring home to become part of the Family , Fed is that person. It is what it is, that's why I say #14 is the important number although 8 is a legendary extremely extraordinary accomplishment

 

[TsarMatt]

Factoid: If Rafa wins tomorrow, it will be his 64th title. I can list half of them (32)
without even looking up.

Rolland Garros ------ 8
Monte Carlo ------ 8
Rome ------ 8
Barcelona ------ 8

Not sure if this is supposed to be used in a disparaging way, but that's awfully impressive. Talk about consistency and 'owning' territory.

A lot of people like to talk about Nadal's 'monopoly' on clay and how it has skewed his image, but I disagree with it. Yes, a lot of Nadal's titles have been on the dirt, but he is also a very accomplished player on both grass and the hard-courts. I mean, you don't win 2 USOs, 1 AO and 2 Wimbledon's from nothing. Also, last year he pretty much exceeded all expectations. I remember him winning Indian Wells pretty much out of the blue -- that was his first HC tournament in nearly a year and people had absolutely no idea how his knee would hold up. Then he casually wins the North American HC swing, and this includes Cincinnati, one of the fastest courts on tour.

Hell, take away all the clay titles Nadal has won and he is still freakishly good. Nadal has played impeccable tennis, across all surfaces, pretty much year-in-year-out for some time now.

TsarMatt, Rafa will always be the other one, not the one that your patents wanted you to bring home to become part of the Family , Fed is that person. It is what it is, that's why I say #14 is the important number although 8 is a legendary extremely extraordinary accomplishment

Why you bringing Federer in this mate? Irrelevant to what I am discussing. I love Fed, and I think he is perhaps the greatest player to ever play the sport, but yeah, no need to really bring him in here. It is possible to discuss Fed and Nadal separately you know.