2017 RG Quarterfinals: Thiem vs. Djokovic

[Fiero425]

I would say burnt out might mean more almost literally as it sounds: the desire could be there, intellectually, but the ability to summon the "fire" is missing. I'm sure Djokovic believes he wants to achieve more in tennis, wants to give Fedal a run for their money in the history books, but the taste for competition seems to have left him. Martina said, last summer I think, in the context of her own big run of wins and domination, that she didn't even recognize that she was burnt out. So she took some time off. (A week or two, I think.) Djokovic needs a big time-out to rekindle the drive. It will be a lot longer than two weeks. Maybe he should just say his shoulder is messed up, go to Vegas and work with Agassi, have a new baby, and come back next year, when he's remembered how much he wants it. Sounds drastic, but it seems like drastic measures are called for, at this point.

We haven't thought about it, but unlike the other "Big 3," Nole hasn't had any extended time off the tour since he arrived almost 10 years ago! I can't remember him dropping below #3 in the world in all that time being one of the most consistent players in the history of the game; obviously rivalling Borg until recently! All the others have had serious injuries, surgeries, and "unannounced" suspensions to put each off the tour for months at a time! That just didn't happen "back in the day!" If you were gone any significant time; either men or women, your career might be done! It's pretty routine these days with extreme cases now that made Haas comings and goings not out of the unusual!

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I'm surprised you're still willing to talk about Federer's draw as particularly difficult. I think you all really mean his "path," and in that sense his and Nadal's were pretty equal.

I think if you look back at the discussions and headlines when the draw came out, everyone talked about what a difficult draw Federer had. I'll certainly admit that I didn't see him defending his SF showing from the year before.

I have the feeling that being written off / being seen as an underdog gave some added fire to Fed's AO campaign. I'm not sure whether that's true though - but I have a bad feeling about everyone talking him up for Wimbledon. Given his decision to take the clay season off, it also feels as though he himself is putting a lot of pressure on the grass ...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Take a bow

Front.."a dead clock tells the correct time twice a day"

 

[El Dude]

Moxie....path, draw, now we're picking nits. I get the difference but it is irrelevant. And yeah, I think Roger's path was, on paper, more difficult than Rafa's, except for the fact that Sascha surprised Rafa and Grigor played the match of his life.

But I agree 100% with you about Novak and being burned out...that's exactly what I was getting at...the disconnect between intellectual desire and really feeling it. The pilot light seems out, and a long break would do him wonders. Either he clarifies that he wants to spend his time doing other things, or he rekindles the fire and comes back and wins two or three more Slams in 2018-20. He's already staked his claim in the inner circle of greats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Murray in any form isn't beating a decent version of Fed at Wimbledon.

Fed's "path" was still significantly harder than Rafa's with the exception of the QF. Berd, Nishi, Zverev and Stan as a group is a lot tougher on paper than Zverev, Monfils, Raonic and Dimitrov.

I didn't say anything about Murray's chances, only how the notion of favorite would be short-gamed a bit.

As to the "path," Mischa Zverev, you have to be kidding. And we've all seen the collapse of Berd, and he wasn't top drawer for AO. His tough path was Nishikori (even though he had an injury the previous tournament and bowed out of DC because of one after...I'll give you that he troubled Roger,) Wawrinka, and Rafa, surely. If you won't give over that Sasha Zverev has been trending, and was then, that Raonic was #3, and Dimitrov was having a brief moment in the sun, then I don't know what. And, of course, Roger. Their relative paths were equivalent in practical terms. And then there was just the difference in the AO weird scheduling. Not saying it would have changed anything, but it's something I think the AO should change.

I think if you look back at the discussions and headlines when the draw came out, everyone talked about what a difficult draw Federer had. I'll certainly admit that I didn't see him defending his SF showing from the year before.

I have the feeling that being written off / being seen as an underdog gave some added fire to Fed's AO campaign. I'm not sure whether that's true though - but I have a bad feeling about everyone talking him up for Wimbledon. Given his decision to take the clay season off, it also feels as though he himself is putting a lot of pressure on the grass ...

MJD: You can see my above as to the Federer draw v. path at the AO. There were also those writers who thought the draw was kind to him. It certainly wasn't so brutal in the way it shook out, given he was ranked #17. I think he and Rafa fought across similar paths. I think what added fire to both of their campaigns is that #1 and #2 went out early, and they are great opportunists. And they're just better than all those mugs left over.

Roger has put his eggs in the grass basket. I don't know if that's too much pressure, or not. It will come down to how consistent his form still is.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie....path, draw, now we're picking nits. I get the difference but it is irrelevant. And yeah, I think Roger's path was, on paper, more difficult than Rafa's, except for the fact that Sascha surprised Rafa and Grigor played the match of his life.

But I agree 100% with you about Novak and being burned out...that's exactly what I was getting at...the disconnect between intellectual desire and really feeling it. The pilot light seems out, and a long break would do him wonders. Either he clarifies that he wants to spend his time doing other things, or he rekindles the fire and comes back and wins two or three more Slams in 2018-20. He's already staked his claim in the inner circle of greats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Path and draw are different, and I don't think that's picking at nits. Federer and his fans were happy to see him on the Murray side of the draw, and Nadal on the Djokovic side. That ended up not to matter at all. You seem to have forgotten how we were going into the AO, but Sasha didn't "surprise" Nadal. That was a much anticipated match. And Dimitrov was coming into the AO on a winning streak, with (supposedly) renewed commitment. Berdych has proven how much he didn't matter even then, "on paper." I'm not trying to diminish Roger's AO, just dispel the notion that he had an especially hard path, especially compared to his eventual final opponent. It was a hard path for him compared to a lot of other Majors he's won, but so was Rafa's.

As to Novak, agreed that he's in the upper echelon of all-time greats, but he needs a serious break and overhaul of his attitude. I thought he was going to play himself back into form, especially after that one day when the sun broke out for him v. Thiem and del Potro in Rome. I know longer think he can play himself back into winning form. The man needs a break. A serious and long one. Maybe some time with Agassi, not on the tour, but in Vegas, will do him good.

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't say anything about Murray's chances, only how the notion of favorite would be short-gamed a bit.

As to the "path," Mischa Zverev, you have to be kidding. And we've all seen the collapse of Berd, and he wasn't top drawer for AO. His tough path was Nishikori (even though he had an injury the previous tournament and bowed out of DC because of one after...I'll give you that he troubled Roger,) Wawrinka, and Rafa, surely. If you won't give over that Sasha Zverev has been trending, and was then, that Raonic was #3, and Dimitrov was having a brief moment in the sun, then I don't know what. And, of course, Roger. Their relative paths were equivalent in practical terms. And then there was just the difference in the AO weird scheduling. Not saying it would have changed anything, but it's something I think the AO should change.



MJD: You can see my above as to the Federer draw v. path at the AO. There were also those writers who thought the draw was kind to him. It certainly wasn't so brutal in the way it shook out, given he was ranked #17. I think he and Rafa fought across similar paths. I think what added fire to both of their campaigns is that #1 and #2 went out early, and they are great opportunists. And they're just better than all those mugs left over.

Roger has put his eggs in the grass basket. I don't know if that's too much pressure, or not. It will come down to how consistent his form still is.

I said as a whole Fed's run was certainly tougher. Zverev was considered a tough match mostly because we were used to Rafa sucking for 2 years before this. He was not seen as a great player/serious contender at the time and still isn't IMO. So if Berd was the 3rd rounder for Nadal it'd have been a similar feel going in. Stan is obviously much better than Dinitrov and Nishikori is much better than Monfils.

 

[Moxie]

I said as a whole Fed's run was certainly tougher. Zverev was considered a tough match mostly because we were used to Rafa sucking for 2 years before this. He was not seen as a great player/serious contender at the time and still isn't IMO. So if Berd was the 3rd rounder for Nadal it'd have been a similar feel going in. Stan is obviously much better than Dinitrov and Nishikori is much better than Monfils.

You are denying reality. A. Zverev was seen as a serious contender already at that point. The fact that he'd challenged Rafa in the past was just a bit of spice. If you didn't consider him a serious contender, you weren't paying attention. Berd as a 3rd rounder to either was a joke. He's been bageled by Rafa in an exhibition just a couple of weeks before. It eludes your memory that Dimitrov was trending at that moment, and that Nishikori was injured. Stan was solid competition, I'll give you that, but the field wasn't that unlevel. Not enough to say that Federer faced a really tough stack, as if Rafa, who eventually faced him in the final, didn't.

 

[DarthFed]

Zverev isn't even a contender at slams now and he definitely wasn't at AO this year. To date he hasn't made it past the 3rd round of a slam. I know that will change soon but we are talking about his level back in January. Berd isn't great but as a 3rd rounder? I'd say no one is hoping to see him in the 3rd round. He is still dangerous when he's on and we saw it in Miami against Fed too. If we are going to talk about Dimitrov playing great which is fair you also have to do the same about Nishi in that 4th round, a match I know you'd didn't see...

 

[Moxie]

Zverev isn't even a contender at slams now and he definitely wasn't at AO this year. To date he hasn't made it past the 3rd round of a slam. I know that will change soon but we are talking about his level back in January. Berd isn't great but as a 3rd rounder? I'd say no one is hoping to see him in the 3rd round. He is still dangerous when he's on and we saw it in Miami against Fed too. If we are going to talk about Dimitrov playing great which is fair you also have to do the same about Nishi in that 4th round, a match I know you'd didn't see...

I have watched that match, since then. It was great. But Nishikori was having injury issues before, and after the AO. Don't know what that says about Roger's level when he got to him. All we can say is what the players were like at that time. I'm not saying that Fed had a cupcake draw, or anything like that. I'm just saying it wasn't as challenging as the perceived wisdom would have us believe. I think you can see that, in retrospect.

 

[DarthFed]

I'd say that match with Nishi showed Roger was a serious threat to win it all. Injury before or not Kei was dialed in and played well above normal. The Nadal-Dinitrov match was greater but I don't think it was necessarily higher quality.

 

[Moxie]

I'd say that match with Nishi showed Roger was a serious threat to win it all. Injury before or not Kei was dialed in and played well above normal. The Nadal-Dinitrov match was greater but I don't think it was necessarily higher quality.

Not even sure what the bolded means. But if you're willing bring it to Roger-Nish/Rafa-Dimi, I think we can say things had rather evened out, in terms of challenge/draw/path. Surely it wasn't far different. That's all I'm saying. You and the likes of El Dude should stop trading in the notion that Roger had such a difficult draw. He was ranked #17...how easy was it supposed to be? He got Murray, which favored him, over Djokovic, (ahem) on paper. Nadal was on the other half. I'll stop reminding you of how crap Berdych is and was. Given how low his rank had sunk, he really couldn't have asked for more.

 

[Fiero425]

Zverev isn't even a contender at slams now and he definitely wasn't at AO this year. To date he hasn't made it past the 3rd round of a slam. I know that will change soon but we are talking about his level back in January. Berd isn't great but as a 3rd rounder? I'd say no one is hoping to see him in the 3rd round. He is still dangerous when he's on and we saw it in Miami against Fed too. If we are going to talk about Dimitrov playing great which is fair you also have to do the same about Nishi in that 4th round, a match I know you'd didn't see...

Well Sasha has done something the other "new-gens" haven't; won a Masters a few wks ago over Novak in the final!

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for the reminder! See Darth?

 

[DarthFed]

That was a few weeks ago, we are talking January. And what did Zverev do at RG here as a "serious contender"? Care to remind me. I think we all know majors and MS are a much different animal.

 

[DarthFed]

Not even sure what the bolded means. But if you're willing bring it to Roger-Nish/Rafa-Dimi, I think we can say things had rather evened out, in terms of challenge/draw/path. Surely it wasn't far different. That's all I'm saying. You and the likes of El Dude should stop trading in the notion that Roger had such a difficult draw. He was ranked #17...how easy was it supposed to be? He got Murray, which favored him, over Djokovic, (ahem) on paper. Nadal was on the other half. I'll stop reminding you of how crap Berdych is and was. Given how low his rank had sunk, he really couldn't have asked for more.

I can agree with a lot of this. No one said he had a brutal draw for being the #17 seed. More like his draw was way harder than usual because he was so low ranked.

As for the bolder part it isn't hard to follow, the semifinal was clearly the match of the tournament, it had everything including bigger stakes than a 4th round match. But in terms of quality of play I'm not sure it exceeded Fed-Nishikori. Much different matches with different styles so it is not easy to compare.

 

[Ricardo]

You are denying reality. A. Zverev was seen as a serious contender already at that point. The fact that he'd challenged Rafa in the past was just a bit of spice. If you didn't consider him a serious contender, you weren't paying attention. Berd as a 3rd rounder to either was a joke. He's been bageled by Rafa in an exhibition just a couple of weeks before. It eludes your memory that Dimitrov was trending at that moment, and that Nishikori was injured. Stan was solid competition, I'll give you that, but the field wasn't that unlevel. Not enough to say that Federer faced a really tough stack, as if Rafa, who eventually faced him in the final, didn't.

if your argument is based on exo to gauge players level, you are a joke. Roddick beat Roger in Kooyong before AO, what happened when they met at AO? you always make your argument without common sense, and only hear things you like to hear.....ignoring facts and logic. Fact is, i can tell you, that Federer did have a tough draw, on paper. What he got out of it is another matter.

 

[Ricardo]

I didn't say anything about Murray's chances, only how the notion of favorite would be short-gamed a bit.

As to the "path," Mischa Zverev, you have to be kidding. And we've all seen the collapse of Berd, and he wasn't top drawer for AO. His tough path was Nishikori (even though he had an injury the previous tournament and bowed out of DC because of one after...I'll give you that he troubled Roger,) Wawrinka, and Rafa, surely. If you won't give over that Sasha Zverev has been trending, and was then, that Raonic was #3, and Dimitrov was having a brief moment in the sun, then I don't know what. And, of course, Roger. Their relative paths were equivalent in practical terms. And then there was just the difference in the AO weird scheduling. Not saying it would have changed anything, but it's something I think the AO should change.



MJD: You can see my above as to the Federer draw v. path at the AO. There were also those writers who thought the draw was kind to him. It certainly wasn't so brutal in the way it shook out, given he was ranked #17. I think he and Rafa fought across similar paths. I think what added fire to both of their campaigns is that #1 and #2 went out early, and they are great opportunists. And they're just better than all those mugs left over.

Roger has put his eggs in the grass basket. I don't know if that's too much pressure, or not. It will come down to how consistent his form still is.

i always have problem with those couch potatoes who think they are qualified to call these pro players 'mugs' or whatever. They are all one in million talents and have earned the position to compete with the best in the world, what have you done? mugs? what about you.....dust?

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Path and draw are different, and I don't think that's picking at nits. Federer and his fans were happy to see him on the Murray side of the draw, and Nadal on the Djokovic side. That ended up not to matter at all. You seem to have forgotten how we were going into the AO, but Sasha didn't "surprise" Nadal. That was a much anticipated match. And Dimitrov was coming into the AO on a winning streak, with (supposedly) renewed commitment. Berdych has proven how much he didn't matter even then, "on paper." I'm not trying to diminish Roger's AO, just dispel the notion that he had an especially hard path, especially compared to his eventual final opponent. It was a hard path for him compared to a lot of other Majors he's won, but so was Rafa's.

As to Novak, agreed that he's in the upper echelon of all-time greats, but he needs a serious break and overhaul of his attitude. I thought he was going to play himself back into form, especially after that one day when the sun broke out for him v. Thiem and del Potro in Rome. I know longer think he can play himself back into winning form. The man needs a break. A serious and long one. Maybe some time with Agassi, not on the tour, but in Vegas, will do him good.

Federer's draw was seen as a tough one. It was essentially universally agreed. You can find a lot of articles to this respect with any search, e.g.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...asco-federer-murray-in-same-quarter/96517872/

Doesn't mean, of course, that Nadal's was easy.

PS. Who said this about Nadal's draw when it came out?

I was hoping he'd get Fed in his quarter for at least one easy match. B-)

 

[Moxie]

Federer's draw was seen as a tough one. It was essentially universally agreed. You can find a lot of articles to this respect with any search, e.g.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...asco-federer-murray-in-same-quarter/96517872/

Doesn't mean, of course, that Nadal's was easy.

PS. Who said this about Nadal's draw when it came out?

Here's one that from the NYTimes that thought the draw gods were actually kind to Roger: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/sports/tennis/australian-open-draw.html?mcubz=2

Nadal's wasn't easy, either, and I know that's not what anyone is arguing. I'm merely saying that I think the notion that Roger had an especially tough draw/path is a bit wrong, and is taking on the value of "true-ism." Even Darth agreed that for a #17, he shouldn't have wished for more. As far as the path for both Roger and Rafa, I think they were similar. Each had a #1 or #2 in their path, that they never ended up meeting, so who cares which got which. They both played 3 5-setters, I think. Rough opponents at different points, but not dissimilar paths. Too bad that the AO doesn't play the men's semis on the same day.