2017 RG Quarterfinals: Thiem vs. Djokovic

[mrzz]

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.

It doesn´t matter if the draw was rough or not for a #17. It matters, for history at least, if the draw was absolutely rough or not. And, honestly, for me Federer´s is quite harder.

Paths to the final from both:

Federer Nadal

Melzer 296 Mayer 49
Rubin 197 Baghdatis 36
Berdych 10 Zverev 24
Nishikori 5 Monfils 6
MZverev 50 Raonic 3
Wawrinka 4 Dimitrov 15

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is a much more serious mental challenge than Nadal or Federer ever were facing.

I was thinking about this the other day, and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

On one hand, I think the mental challenge of having to come back from so many injuries as Nadal did, many of which he was struck with when he was at his peak or playing great tennis, is in theory, a bigger challenge than just getting over a slump in which you're playing horribly. The combination of mental and physical hurdles you have to overcome can be huge, and it no doubt required a great deal of toughness to come back strong almost every time.

On the other hand, while Novak doesn't have any physical issue that we know of (although I suspect the back is bothering him but I can't claim to know the extent of that, if it exists at all), this in a way can make it more frustrating to overcome because there is no tangible excuse for the sort of bad tennis he's playing, so it's harder to pinpoint the problem and deal with it, especially with the suddenness, intensity, and length of the drop in form. You obviously rather deal with that than having to go through an injury since you won't have to worry about it affecting your game on the long run and how your body will recover, but it can be more difficult to actually problem-solve.

That said, Novak isn't that old or anything (although this is the age almost all athletes show signs of being past their prime so it's not all that surprising) and he'll come back, that's for sure. Look at Nadal and Federer (who's much older). There's no way Novak will play like this for more than a few more months (maybe he doesn't recover this year, although I think he will). He's got a few majors left, I'm pretty sure.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It doesn´t matter if the draw was rough or not for a #17. It matters, for history at least, if the draw was absolutely rough or not. And, honestly, for me Federer´s is quite harder.

Paths to the final from both:

Federer Nadal

Melzer 296 Mayer 49
Rubin 197 Baghdatis 36
Berdych 10 Zverev 24
Nishikori 5 Monfils 6
MZverev 50 Raonic 3
Wawrinka 4 Dimitrov 15

I think Roger had a tougher draw on paper but this is a bit misleading.

I think Zverev, despite the ranking, was a tougher 3rd round match-up than Berdych, given where they're at this stage of their careers, and their respective forms (this is all the more evident with the benefit of hindsight).

Conversely, while the ranking is more or less the same, Nishikori is a much tougher outing than Monfils. I think we all agree Raonic is a much tougher match than the inferior Zverev brother (and their respective rankings makes this a no-brainer). Wawrinka is certainly a tougher match than Dimitrov, though we'll both agree Dimitrov played at a much better level in the semi final. It's easy to say now because Roger won the event but we both were in the chat during that Stan/Roger match and a) both players were pretty below par and b) Stan gave away that match by our collective admissions at the time.

Now I get your point, you're just looking at it on paper, and you're right, Roger's path was more difficult, but I don't understand this "significantly tougher" thing that was being thrown around.

More importantly, why does this even matter since both Roger and Rafa reached the final and Federer deservedly won? Was the argument that the draw opened up for Rafa (only asking, didn't read the whole thread) because I don't think that's quite true. I'd say both Djokovic and Murray losing definitely made things easier for Fedal but they both had a challenging path.

What was this thread about again?

 

[mrzz]

I think Roger had a tougher draw on paper but this is a bit misleading.

I think Zverev, despite the ranking, was a tougher 3rd round match-up than Berdych, given where they're at this stage of their careers, and their respective forms (this is all the more evident with the benefit of hindsight).

Conversely, while the ranking is more or less the same, Nishikori is a much tougher outing than Monfils. I think we all agree Raonic is a much tougher match than the inferior Zverev brother (and their respective rankings makes this a no-brainer). Wawrinka is certainly a tougher match than Dimitrov, though we'll both agree Dimitrov played at a much better level in the semi final. It's easy to say now because Roger won the event but we both were in the chat during that Stan/Roger match and a) both players were pretty below par and b) Stan gave away that match by our collective admissions at the time.

Now I get your point, you're just looking at it on paper, and you're right, Roger's path was more difficult, but I don't understand this "significantly tougher" thing that was being thrown around.

More importantly, why does this even matter since both Roger and Rafa reached the final and Federer deservedly won? Was the argument that the draw opened up for Rafa (only asking, didn't read the whole thread) because I don't think that's quite true. I'd say both Djokovic and Murray losing definitely made things easier for Fedal but they both had a challenging path.

What was this thread about again?

You're right that this is almost irrelevant... I only replied because it seemed to me that there was a bit of history rewriting going on (and in such cases I always reply). On paper, and matchup wise, I guess Federer's draw was harder, but surely given how Dimitrov played the semi, it got closer.

Anyway, to me all paths to the final in a slam are hard. But, again: yes, this is a far from relevant discussion.

BTW, welcome back.

 

[DarthFed]

I think Roger had a tougher draw on paper but this is a bit misleading.

I think Zverev, despite the ranking, was a tougher 3rd round match-up than Berdych, given where they're at this stage of their careers, and their respective forms (this is all the more evident with the benefit of hindsight).

Conversely, while the ranking is more or less the same, Nishikori is a much tougher outing than Monfils. I think we all agree Raonic is a much tougher match than the inferior Zverev brother (and their respective rankings makes this a no-brainer). Wawrinka is certainly a tougher match than Dimitrov, though we'll both agree Dimitrov played at a much better level in the semi final. It's easy to say now because Roger won the event but we both were in the chat during that Stan/Roger match and a) both players were pretty below par and b) Stan gave away that match by our collective admissions at the time.

Now I get your point, you're just looking at it on paper, and you're right, Roger's path was more difficult, but I don't understand this "significantly tougher" thing that was being thrown around.

More importantly, why does this even matter since both Roger and Rafa reached the final and Federer deservedly won? Was the argument that the draw opened up for Rafa (only asking, didn't read the whole thread) because I don't think that's quite true. I'd say both Djokovic and Murray losing definitely made things easier for Fedal but they both had a challenging path.

What was this thread about again?

Isn't it obvious, it's about Moxie's hurt feelings over the 2017 AO draw. Clearly Roger had it easy in becoming the first guy in 35 years to beat 4 top 10 players en route to winning a slam

 

[brokenshoelace]

Isn't it obvious, it's about Moxie's hurt feelings over the 2017 AO draw. Clearly Roger had it easy in becoming the first guy in 35 years to beat 4 top 10 players en route to winning a slam

It makes zero sense to talk about which draw was tougher when the two ultimately ended up reaching the final (and both faced difficulties getting there). In other words, it would be one thing if we're comparing a major that Nadal won to a different one that Federer won, and the draw argument was raised, because then you could claim that the big reason one of them won that particular major was the draw opening up. But when they end up facing each other in the final, it doesn't matter, because A) both overcame the draw and B) they're playing one another, so the winner is by definition, more deserving.

 

[El Dude]

I think Broken said it best in #123 above. Roger's draw was tougher on paper, but this was at least partially equalized by the rising Zverev vs. the declining Berdych, and the virtuoso performance of Dimitrov. Either way, both had a tough path to the final, far tougher than Rafa's path at Roland Garros.

 

[Front242]

Had to get that dig in, El Dude, haha

 

[El Dude]

Had to get that dig in, El Dude, haha

Yeah, it was unnecessary, but true. That said, Rafa is playing at such a high level that he probably would have steam-rolled just about anyone.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Honestly, the one time where draws don't matter is Nadal at the French Open. If he's playing remotely well, he reaches the final. Doesn't matter who he plays.

 

[Front242]

Let's not kid ourselves here and forget the main reason for his confidence boost is that Novak is basically playing like a top 20/30 player at best right now and since winning RG last year. Sure, they've only played once this year, but if Novak had been playing well and spanked him at Madrid there would definitely be some doubt and nerves out there. Thiem played a very poor match too. Went for no angles and made far too many errors. Toni himself said he thought Rafa didn't even play very well against Thiem.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let's not kid ourselves here and forget the main reason for his confidence boost is that Novak is basically playing like a top 20/30 player at best right now and since winning RG last year. Sure, they've only played once this year, but if Novak had been playing well and spanked him at Madrid there would definitely be some doubt and nerves out there. Thiem played a very poor match too. Went for no angles and made far too many errors. Toni himself said he thought Rafa didn't even play very well against Thiem.

Pretty sure the main reason for his confidence boost is working well in the off season, being injury free, reaching the final of his first major back, and winning important tournaments and pretty much going deep in all of them, as opposed to the last two years where he stunk up the joint. Pretty sure Novak's poor level has no bearing on Nadal suddenly rediscovering his forehand, and won't make Nadal chase down balls a little faster.

And given how Novak has dominated Roger in the past the past few years, you could just as easily claim the main reason Roger has won so many titles this year is Novak playing like a top 20/30 player.

Just a reminder, as of writing this, Rafael Nadal has won the French Open NINE TIMES, and is widely regarded as the greatest clay court player of all time. At this same tournament, he has faced Novak Djokovic seven times and beat him in 6 out of those 7, with Novak's only victory coming during quite literally the worst patch of Nadal's career. So yeah, I'll go ahead and say Nadal isn't waiting on someone else's results to feel confident at Roland freaking Garros.

 

[Carol]

 

[Carol]

And Andy Roddick to Fish......:lulz2:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If you compare Roger's AO draw with his draw at any other GS that he has won before, it will be very clear that
this is the toughest. I don't think he ever had to win against four top 10 players in the same GS. Further, it is not
that his opponents were having high rankings, but actually duds either. They all gave good fight. Roger never
had to play three five setters in any of the GS he has won before.

 

[Front242]

Pretty sure the main reason for his confidence boost is working well in the off season, being injury free, reaching the final of his first major back, and winning important tournaments and pretty much going deep in all of them, as opposed to the last two years where he stunk up the joint. Pretty sure Novak's poor level has no bearing on Nadal suddenly rediscovering his forehand, and won't make Nadal chase down balls a little faster.

And given how Novak has dominated Roger in the past the past few years, you could just as easily claim the main reason Roger has won so many titles this year is Novak playing like a top 20/30 player.

Just a reminder, as of writing this, Rafael Nadal has won the French Open NINE TIMES, and is widely regarded as the greatest clay court player of all time. At this same tournament, he has faced Novak Djokovic seven times and beat him in 6 out of those 7, with Novak's only victory coming during quite literally the worst patch of Nadal's career. So yeah, I'll go ahead and say Nadal isn't waiting on someone else's results to feel confident at Roland freaking Garros.

100% agree it has had an effect on everyone, not just Nadal. Of course Roger is better off that Novak is playing crap too. So is Murray, so is Nadal and everyone else that Djokovic was beating. Except Stan maybe, who had his number in the big matches already

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you compare Roger's AO draw with his draw at any other GS that he has won before, it will be very clear that
this is the toughest. I don't think he ever had to win against four top 10 players in the same GS. Further, it is not
that his opponents were having high rankings, but actually duds either. They all gave good fight. Roger never
had to play three five setters in any of the GS he has won before.

This is true, but that's what happens when you're the #17 seed.

Actually, the reason I think this is Roger's toughest path to winning a slam ever, in addition to the players he faced on the way to the final, is the player he faced IN the final. Roger hadn't won many slams while beating Nadal along the way (2 slams to be exact, prior to this year's AO. Wimbledon 06 and 07). So when you factor in his low seeding, the players he faced along the way, and having to beat his bete noire in the final, then yes I think you can make the argument this has been his toughest ever draw, though I haven't looked at some of his early GS wins. The tour was loaded back then (although he owned all these guys) so I'm interested in seeing if he won some slams having to go through Hewitt/Nalbandian/Safin or something like that.

 

[Denis]

Pretty sure the main reason for his confidence boost is working well in the off season, being injury free, reaching the final of his first major back, and winning important tournaments and pretty much going deep in all of them, as opposed to the last two years where he stunk up the joint. Pretty sure Novak's poor level has no bearing on Nadal suddenly rediscovering his forehand, and won't make Nadal chase down balls a little faster.

And given how Novak has dominated Roger in the past the past few years, you could just as easily claim the main reason Roger has won so many titles this year is Novak playing like a top 20/30 player.

Just a reminder, as of writing this, Rafael Nadal has won the French Open NINE TIMES, and is widely regarded as the greatest clay court player of all time. At this same tournament, he has faced Novak Djokovic seven times and beat him in 6 out of those 7, with Novak's only victory coming during quite literally the worst patch of Nadal's career. So yeah, I'll go ahead and say Nadal isn't waiting on someone else's results to feel confident at Roland freaking Garros.

Nitpicking, but he was the defending champ, I think last year was his worst patch. Also Novak straightsetted him B-). I think it's fair to say that Novak is the only real competition Nadal has had here, given his level.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nitpicking, but he was the defending champ, I think last year was his worst patch. Also Novak straightsetted him B-). I think it's fair to say that Novak is the only real competition Nadal has had here, given his level.

Yes, he was the defending champ, meaning that he won it 12 months prior... and had seriously stunk up the joint since (pretty much all the way up until this year). He also dealt with a back injury that forced him out of the rest of the season post-US Open (I don't even recall who the hell he lost to there. Fognini?). Then he got straight setted Thomas freaking Berdych at the AO, a guy he was like 29292929-0 against in the past decade. I don't think anyone can seriously argue Nadal was anywhere near his best at the FO in 2015. In fact, Rafa had entered the FO that year without winning a single clay tournament that spring, including Barcelona (where he lost to Fognini). I think that says everything about the kind of form he was in, since it's literally the only time that had happened in his career.

I agree Novak is the only competition Nadal has had on clay (not just at the FO), and I think at his best Novak is a challenge for any version of Nadal on the dirt, but it's not coincidental that Nadal is 6-1 against Novak at RG, with his only loss coming on the heels of the aforementioned drop in form. There's no way around it. I remember nobody gave Nadal a serious shot in that match, which says it all.

Not attempting to rewrite history or anything, but we can't ignore this.

 

[Denis]

Yes, he was the defending champ, meaning that he won it 12 months prior... and had seriously stunk up the joint since (pretty much all the way up until this year). He also dealt with a back injury that forced him out of the rest of the season post-US Open (I don't even recall who the hell he lost to there. Fognini?). Then he got straight setted Thomas freaking Berdych at the AO, a guy he was like 29292929-0 against in the past decade. I don't think anyone can seriously argue Nadal was anywhere near his best at the FO in 2015. In fact, Rafa had entered the FO that year without winning a single clay tournament that spring, including Barcelona (where he lost to Fognini). I think that says everything about the kind of form he was in, since it's literally the only time that had happened in his career.

I agree Novak is the only competition Nadal has had on clay (not just at the FO), and I think at his best Novak is a challenge for any version of Nadal on the dirt, but it's not coincidental that Nadal is 6-1 against Novak at RG, with his only loss coming on the heels of the aforementioned drop in form. There's no way around it. I remember nobody gave Nadal a serious shot in that match, which says it all.

Not attempting to rewrite history or anything, but we can't ignore this.

Yeah not really arguing this, but he did straight set him. I think their 2013 match will go down as their best on the dirt in terms of both playing at a high level.