2014 Miami Final: Nadal vs. Djokovic

[GameSetAndMath]

I would prefer to see Master's finals revert back to the best of 5 sets.

I too agree with you.

All of these changes happened after the epic Fedal final in Rome.

But, the thing is after that Fedal final they made two changes immediately.

1. Top 8 players were guaranteed a bye in all Masters tournaments.

2. Finals were reduced to 3 set matches.

In other words, they went overboard due to one isolated event.
They should have continued to keep the finals as 5 set matches. They
should have given byes in the first round ONLY in those Masters
tournament that were preceded by another Masters tournament.

 

[britbox]

Actually, Mastoor, I don't think much about you at all, either way. You're absent so often after Novak's defeats, it's getting easy to forget you...

Likewise, I just didn't think you'll so much hated to see me here, but then there's Denisovic and perhaps someone else who'll be also happy to see me

The more Novak fans on the board, the better. Welcome back.

 

[Front242]

If they did that Nadal would probably have less than 13 slams and be injured a lot more, same goes for Murray except the 13 slams part. Not sure about Djokovic as he seems lucky with injuries. The Fedster would probably have had a longer time with a dodgy back too. As fun as they were back then I think it'd mean the top guys would be less than their best at the big events (namely slams), which we don't want. It's probably best they ditched the 5 set finals at masters imo, but like most people I do miss them. We have to think long term for the players' health.

 

[Moxie]

Well Moxie--you have to admit that you've been known to NIP on occasion

You want pu$$y cats, or lively conversation? :angel: :laydownlaughing

 

[Riotbeard]

Well Moxie--you have to admit that you've been known to NIP on occasion

You want pu$$y cats, or lively conversation? :angel: :laydownlaughing

Neither. I want pointless anger.:s

 

[Moxie]

Well Moxie--you have to admit that you've been known to NIP on occasion

You want pu$$y cats, or lively conversation? :angel: :laydownlaughing

Neither. I want pointless anger.:s

No one wants that. I suspect you're making a point? :idea:

 

[Riotbeard]

Well Moxie--you have to admit that you've been known to NIP on occasion

You want pu$$y cats, or lively conversation? :angel: :laydownlaughing

Neither. I want pointless anger.:s

No one wants that. I suspect you're making a point? :idea:

Joke. Noooo point.

 

[Moxie]

^ Alright…I'll chill. I was trying to stay around as a valiant Rafa fan. (No tucking tail here.) I guess I've held up my end now, as to the faith in the clay season. I will back off now. :angel: :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

This result was predictable. Novak is just flat out better on hards and Nadal needs a REALLY good performance to stand a chance of winning on this surface.

But if anyone dares suggest that Novak's two losses to Nadal in the US Open final were inexcusable, then......

After watching this match and many others, to think that Djokovic has 1 US Open while Nadal has 2 is just appalling. Talk about an upside-down world. Things do not have to make sense - at all.

 

[Riotbeard]

Thought the quotes in this article were quite good, in particular when Novak talks about the effect of his cross court backhand.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/king-hard-courts/51054/#.UzjSzscow4Q

 

[Moxie]

This result was predictable. Novak is just flat out better on hards and Nadal needs a REALLY good performance to stand a chance of winning on this surface.

But if anyone dares suggest that Novak's two losses to Nadal in the US Open final were inexcusable, then......

After watching this match and many others, to think that Djokovic has 1 US Open while Nadal has 2 is just appalling. Talk about an upside-down world. Things do not have to make sense - at all.

"Predictable" and "inexcusable" are completely different things. "Predictable" merely assesses which player is more likely to win over another on a given surface, like Djokovic over…well, anyone…on slow hards. "Inexcusable" is a value judgement; by using it, you insert your opinion over the actual outcome. That's not a rational assessment, but an emotional reaction to a real result. You constantly insert your disapproval against wins that Nadal secures which you think he 'shouldn't' have had. And yet he did.

Players will sometimes lose the ones they predictably shouldn't. But losing on the day doesn't make it "inexcusable," be it Novak or Roger on HCs, (or grass, with Roger,) or Rafa on the clay. And when they play each other, even less so. When they play each other, some results are more predictable than others, but I disagree that any are "inexcusable."

 

[herios]

This result was predictable. Novak is just flat out better on hards and Nadal needs a REALLY good performance to stand a chance of winning on this surface.

But if anyone dares suggest that Novak's two losses to Nadal in the US Open final were inexcusable, then......

After watching this match and many others, to think that Djokovic has 1 US Open while Nadal has 2 is just appalling. Talk about an upside-down world. Things do not have to make sense - at all.

For some reasons, unknown to me, Nole has underperformed at the USO generally speaking, when you consider how well he can play on HC (just compare that to his AO record).
I know the points are faster in NY and that might be one of the explanations.
He is not as good and dominant on fast HC than on slow hards.

 

[nehmeth]

Thought the quotes in this article were quite good, in particular when Novak talks about the effect of his cross court backhand.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/king-hard-courts/51054/#.UzjSzscow4Q

Yes. I read this earlier and liked what he said too.

“He serves and moves to his backhand corner, so he opens me the court for the forehand side. But I have to play precise and deep, then choose my moment to take advantage. I think the backhand cross-court (it heads for the left hander’s forehand) won me the match today.”

Later, he added, perhaps mindful of the upcoming move to clay: “Rafa may be the king of clay, but I think the tactic doesn’t depend on the surface.”

In 2011 he was able to translate that tactic to wins on clay and grass. It remains to be seen if he'll be able to do it again this year.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Thought the quotes in this article were quite good, in particular when Novak talks about the effect of his cross court backhand.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/king-hard-courts/51054/#.UzjSzscow4Q

good article..interesting what novak said about playing to nadals in/out forehand which is what most players really want to stay away from, and that the tactic is NOT surface dependant..

sounds like his confidence vs rafa is back which should make the clay spring very interesting..maybe even some all time epic meetings potentially.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

*oh I did not read the replies below riotbeard until after I poasted so I missed nemeths poast which I clearly agree with.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Congratulations to Novak and his fans.

So, Novak's confidence issues will now be history.

They were history in 2011, too...

Let me see, we don't expect anyone close to Nole to die during clay season like they did in 2012 and 2013. Ever since 2009 Rafa beat Nole on clay only when someone close to nole died during the season on clay.

You see kids, no Novak fan ever used the Grandpa excuse in 2012. That was just part of hallucination.

But then again, this is at least factually correct (as in, his grandfather did die). Accusing Federer of PED's after beating Djokovic at the FO remains at the top of my favorite excuses list...of any fanbase! And considering this board is mainly consisted of Nadal fans, that says something!

 

[brokenshoelace]

If they did that Nadal would probably have less than 13 slams and be injured a lot more.

Wait, what? I like you man, but this is a bit far-fetched. Nadal might be injury prone, but he's not made out of glass. How many Masters finals does Nadal reach per year? 5? Let's say 6 (and even that is a bit of a stretch but let's assume it's a REALLY good year like the one he had in 2013). You mean to tell me that 6 extra best of 5 set matches, stretched out over an entire season (as opposed to being played back-to-back and thus potentially taking their toll), most of which WILL NOT go the distance anyway, are going to injure him "a lot more" and somehow tamper with his slam results?

Even in Nadal's busiest time of the year -- the clay court season -- he has historically won an overwhelming majority of his masters 1000 finals there in straight sets. So if it were a best of 5, you're probably adding a set to each match (making them 3 setters, something you can play in a best 3 set match if it goes the distance)...hardly career threatening stuff.

Let's agree that his FO results wouldn't have been affected since he's just that good there. What other slam wouldn't he have won? There are no masters 1000 events before Wimbledon so it's not like he would have gotten there tired/injured in 2008 or 2010. There are no masters 1000 events before the AO so I doubt his 2009 result would have been any different.

At the 2010 US Open, Nadal didn't reach a masters final that summer so he would have been just as fresh (and in fact won all of his 3 clay court masters finals that year in straights, so adding a set to each one wouldn't really have ruined his year).

At last year's US Open, Rafa did win both Montreal and Cinci, but did so by spanking Raonic 6-2 6-2 and going through a serve fest against Isner to win 7-6 7-6. Adding another set for him to beatdown Raonic wouldn't have altered his results, while another tie-breaker over Isner is hardly stuff of physical suffering.

The main problem with the best of 5 set format in Masters 1000 finals is back-to-back tournaments like IW and Miami or Madrid and Rome where a long five setter might result in the finalists pulling out (a la Fedal after Rome 2006). But even that to me, is a rare occurrence (a lot of ifs and buts).

 

[Fiero425]

If they did that Nadal would probably have less than 13 slams and be injured a lot more.

Wait, what? I like you man, but this is a bit far-fetched. Nadal might be injury prone, but he's not made out of glass. How many Masters finals does Nadal reach per year? 5? Let's say 6 (and even that is a bit of a stretch but let's assume it's a REALLY good year like the one he had in 2013). You mean to tell me that 6 extra best of 5 set matches, stretched out over an entire season (as opposed to being played back-to-back and thus potentially taking their toll), most of which WILL NOT go the distance anyway, are going to injure him "a lot more" and somehow tamper with his slam results?

Even in Nadal's busiest time of the year -- the clay court season -- he has historically won an overwhelming majority of his masters 1000 finals there in straight sets. So if it were a best of 5, you're probably adding a set to each match (making them 3 setters, something you can play in a best 3 set match if it goes the distance)...hardly career threatening stuff.

Let's agree that his FO results wouldn't have been affected since he's just that good there. What other slam wouldn't he have won? There are no masters 1000 events before Wimbledon so it's not like he would have gotten there tired/injured in 2008 or 2010. There are no masters 1000 events before the AO so I doubt his 2009 result would have been any different.

At the 2010 US Open, Nadal didn't reach a masters final that summer so he would have been just as fresh (and in fact won all of his 3 clay court masters finals that year in straights, so adding a set to each one wouldn't really have ruined his year).

At last year's US Open, Rafa did win both Montreal and Cinci, but did so by spanking Raonic 6-2 6-2 and going through a serve fest against Isner to win 7-6 7-6. Adding another set for him to beatdown Raonic wouldn't have altered his results, while another tie-breaker over Isner is hardly stuff of physical suffering.

The main problem with the best of 5 set format in Masters 1000 finals is back-to-back tournaments like IW and Miami or Madrid and Rome where a long five setter might result in the finalists pulling out (a la Fedal after Rome 2006). But even that to me, is a rare occurrence (a lot of ifs and buts).

I'm a purist and feel it makes sense to have a tough time winning a Masters by going at least best of 5 in finals! In the past this made sense, but not today! Players like Nole, Rafa, David, Andy, Verdsaco, and Del Po allow matches to go for hours unnecessarily by playing so defensively! Nothing bores me more than a long, drawn out 3 setter from these top players, going 3 1/2 hours! Today was ideal with one dominating so it went rather quickly! If only this happened more often I'd watch more! The bigger tourneys should be best of 5 regardless; Rome and Monte Carlo too iconic to make them an easy best of 3! I have very vivid memories of Borg and Panatta going 4 or 5 sets and they were classics! I think you'd have more varied winners like the past if it were tougher too! It seems we're accomodating the top 'rung' so they can divide the spoils and not share with the 2nd tier of players! We just don't have a Nalbandian or Davydenko winning many Masters and esp. not the WTF these days! Right now all the Masters are being held by 2 players; Nole and Rafa! That has never happened before; not even close! We could always depend on someone outside the top tier taking a fall Masters like Paris or even the WTF!

 

[Kieran]

Congratulations to Novak and his fans.

So, Novak's confidence issues will now be history.

They were history in 2011, too...

Let me see, we don't expect anyone close to Nole to die during clay season like they did in 2012 and 2013. Ever since 2009 Rafa beat Nole on clay only when someone close to nole died during the season on clay.

You see kids, no Novak fan ever used the Grandpa excuse in 2012. That was just part of hallucination.

But then again, this is at least factually correct (as in, his grandfather did die). Accusing Federer of PED's after beating Djokovic at the FO remains at the top of my favorite excuses list...of any fanbase! And considering this board is mainly consisted of Nadal fans, that says something!

Who accused Federer?

Since we have more Nole fans about, how's his dad? I always liked to see him at tourneys but didn't notice him yesterday. I read that he wasn't well last year. Hope he's doing well...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Congratulations to Novak and his fans.

So, Novak's confidence issues will now be history.

They were history in 2011, too...

Let me see, we don't expect anyone close to Nole to die during clay season like they did in 2012 and 2013. Ever since 2009 Rafa beat Nole on clay only when someone close to nole died during the season on clay.

You see kids, no Novak fan ever used the Grandpa excuse in 2012. That was just part of hallucination.

But then again, this is at least factually correct (as in, his grandfather did die). Accusing Federer of PED's after beating Djokovic at the FO remains at the top of my favorite excuses list...of any fanbase! And considering this board is mainly consisted of Nadal fans, that says something!

Who accused Federer?

Since we have more Nole fans about, how's his dad? I always liked to see him at tourneys but didn't notice him yesterday. I read that he wasn't well last year. Hope he's doing well...

You don't remember the whole "Federer on PEDs" fiasco on the old forums? You're lucky. I won't name names but I'll give you a hint...One of them just appeared in this thread out of the blue.

And you like seeing Novak's dad at tournaments? You might be the only person in the world, including Novak himself.