2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[Kieran]

The point was comparison of achievement outside of this one place where his running mostly counts!
got it?
He is nothing without RG compared to the Two!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that's a nonsense argument, one we've heard a lot of, and it basically tries to reduce the importance of the FO as a slam. We could easy turn that one around and say, "take off Novak's favourite surface and 17 becomes 6." Why would we do that? And why should Rafa's record at the FO be held against him, given that it's a record of dominance that we need to look outside of tennis to find a sportsman to compare him with? We should be in awe, that would be more proper....

 

[Bonaca]

Djokovic has won 9 of his slams outside of his favorite AO. GOATdal has won 7 of his slams outside of his favorite RG just like Sampras won 7 of his slams outside of his favorite WB. Not a big difference so GOATdal being "nothing" without RG is a very clueless comment from you.

At the end of the day it's 20 > 17 > 14.

GOATdal is 20-17 in slam titles and 10-6 in slam h2h over Djokovic, it's not even close.

The final ranking will be: Goldal > Silverer > Bronzokovic.

Timeline honey, timeline! Don’t forget about that while you stat-pick.
Nadal is much longer on tour and began to collect slams way before Novak came up, look at the numbers since they were on same eye level!
Despite all of that he is still in front of their h2h, not talking about all the other records, rabbit could never reach!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonaca]

But that's a nonsense argument, one we've heard a lot of, and it basically tries to reduce the importance of the FO as a slam. We could easy turn that one around and say, "take off Novak's favourite surface and 17 becomes 6." Why would we do that? And why should Rafa's record at the FO be held against him, given that it's a record of dominance that we need to look outside of tennis to find a sportsman to compare him with? We should be in awe, that would be more proper....

Nonsense just to nadalboys, everything is nonsense that doesn’t praise your lord?

Point is without this slow clay court in Paris, Nadal would be mediocre , in Agassis league, not even close to Pete.
You don’t see Novak as the more complete player: looking at surface and speed of court dependence???
Come on don’t be silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kieran]

Nonsense just to nadalboys, everything is nonsense that doesn’t praise your lord?

Point is without this slow clay court in Paris, Nadal would be mediocre , in Agassis league, not even close to Pete.
You don’t see Novak as the more complete player: looking at surface and speed of court dependence???
Come on don’t be silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, you're looking at things wrongly, in order to praise Novak and do down Rafa. And Agassi too, by the looks of it. You really should look into tennis history a bit more.

I've explained this clearly to you on my previous post. Try reading it slower?

 

[Bonaca]

Again, you're looking at things wrongly, in order to praise Novak and do down Rafa. And Agassi too, by the looks of it. You really should look into tennis history a bit more.

I've explained this clearly to you on my previous post. Try reading it slower?

Haha this was your best post since you came back on “save” ground after Rabbit ran down another slam.
Will you disappear again when Rabbit loses again?
There is always a flip side, imagine that you poet. Maybe it would help you to firstly pull your head out of his butt and look at things from more distance. Just maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

You listen to yourself, Bonaca. You're accusing others of looking at facts wrongly, anything to build up their man, while you want to adjust the "timeline" and erase the French Open, while keeping the Australian one, which until fairly recently no one even played, except Aussies and the odd Kiwi. You really are working pretty hard to make 17 sound better than 20.

 

[Kieran]

You listen to yourself, Bonaca. You're accusing others of looking at facts wrongly, anything to build up their man, while you want to adjust the "timeline" and erase the French Open, while keeping the Australian one, which until fairly recently no one even played, except Aussies and the odd Kiwi. You really are working pretty hard to make 17 sound better than 20.

I remember those days well, I'm sure many of us do, when the Australian Open was the old broken down jalopy of the slams, with none of the top players making the trip. Looking at the names of finalists in the late 70's and early 80's is like taking part in a pub quiz. Is Kim Warwick a type of satchel? Or is she a famous hair stylist? Or was he a finalist of the Australian Open tennis?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Carol, and a good call too. The bigger surprise for me is that more people picked Novak to win, than Rafa. I gave Novak a shot, but my prediction was Rafa in four...

Thanks,next time Carol appears I will congratulate her

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I remember those days well, I'm sure many of us do, when the Australian Open was the old broken down jalopy of the slams, with none of the top players making the trip. Looking at the names of finalists in the late 70's and early 80's is like taking part in a pub quiz. Is Kim Warwick a type of satchel? Or is she a famous hair stylist? Or was he a finalist of the Australian Open tennis?

I love you Kieren but watch it I live in the land of Oz
Kim Warwick was a part time hair stylist his other job he was a finalist at the AO....lol!

 

[Bonaca]

You listen to yourself, Bonaca. You're accusing others of looking at facts wrongly, anything to build up their man, while you want to adjust the "timeline" and erase the French Open, while keeping the Australian one, which until fairly recently no one even played, except Aussies and the odd Kiwi. You really are working pretty hard to make 17 sound better than 20.

What most of you do?
You moxie are at least brave enough to stay beside your horse even when losing. Look how many poster came out of their holes only when rabbit won.
Nadalidiot2013 always came along with the same stat-pics, I show how relative this shit is.
Everytime you saint hear some negative words about the butt-picker you lose your gloriole, call other moron. When a player, no one of us know personally, is criticized , you choose personally insults? These are signs of greatness, no?
Look in the mirror from your high seat old lady, what do you see?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

What most of you do?
You moxie are at least brave enough to stay beside your horse even when losing. Look how many poster came out of their holes only when rabbit won.
Nadalidiot2013 always came along with the same stat-pics, I show how relative this shit is.
Everytime you saint hear some negative words about the butt-picker you lose your gloriole, call other moron. When a player, no one of us know personally, is criticized , you choose personally insults? These are signs of greatness, no?
Look in the mirror from your high seat old lady, what do you see?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, come on. You sling insults all over the place, say all kinds of gross and mean things, but you can't take 'em yourself. And god forbid we talk bad about Novak, or we're "racist" against Serbians. Notice how many non-Nadal fans came back to post, too...it was the end of a Major, we've had very little tennis to discuss for months, and the GOAT race was in play in this final.

 

[Bonaca]

Oh, come on. You sling insults all over the place, say all kinds of gross and mean things, but you can't take 'em yourself. And god forbid we talk bad about Novak, or we're "racist" against Serbians. Notice how many non-Nadal fans came back to post, too...it was the end of a Major, we've had very little tennis to discuss for months, and the GOAT race was in play in this final.

Not to you moxie, never, so didn’t you until now.

 

[Moxie]

Not to you moxie, never, so didn’t you until now.

You just called me an old lady. I don't think that was meant as a compliment. Look, I get this was a disappointing loss for Novak and his fans, but you are going to get push-back when you bully and bluster around.

 

[Jelenafan]

The AO is always a tough one to judge.

Analyzing only from the Open Era (1968) onward I look at it this way,

Women's game, the AO didn't become a full fledged "have to go there , equal to the other Majors" until about 1981-82 when Chrissie and Martina started going there year in and year out and all the other women followed. By the time of Steffi Graff her whole career she traveled down to OZ as did all the top WTA. To put it in perspective , both Martina and Chrissie have said that in hindsight, if they had know the Majors would all count so much afterward in their legacy, they would have gone to the AO more.

Now most of the top men started going to the AO on a regular basis around 1983 onward, that year Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Johnny Mac, all went down and the next year the young Boris Becker started the annual trek. There were the odd man out, like Agassi, who inexplicably skipped the AO until 1995, and ironically that became his most successful Major as far as wins.

Going forward , the whole generation around the Sampras era, starting with Pete in 1989, all that group of ATP players it became almost mandatory to go to the AO, so 89-92 when those newcomers (Courier, Chang, Stich, Goran, Korda, Bruguera, Kraijeck,
Costa, etc) came of age they knew nothing but going to 4 Majors regularly.

So I would opine that in the last 30+ years the AO is equal in importance as the other Majors.

Now the French Open is another matter, except for the WTT days circa 1975-1978, most of the top players have played that tournament throughout the Open Era. It was the bete noire of such players as Pete Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Connors (only played it sporadically) and especially Johnny Mac who wanted to win it badly and came tantalizingly close in 1984. My fave Edberg also came sooo close to winning it after leading Chang but ultimately losing in 5 excruciating sets back in 1989. Even the serve and volley Aussies of the 60's and 70's made the trek to Paris to battle the red clay. Rod Laver won it in his Grand Slam year in 1969 and he was hardly a dirtballer.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The AO is always a tough one to judge.

Analyzing only from the Open Era (1968) onward I look at it this way,

Women's game, the AO didn't become a full fledged "have to go there , equal to the other Majors" until about 1981-82 when Chrissie and Martina started going there year in and year out and all the other women followed. By the time of Steffi Graff her whole career she traveled down to OZ as did all the top WTA. To put it in perspective , both Martina and Chrissie have said that in hindsight, if they had know the Majors would all count so much afterward in their legacy, they would have gone to the AO more.

Now most of the top men started going to the AO on a regular basis around 1983 onward, that year Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Johnny Mac, all went down and the next year the young Boris Becker started the annual trek. There were the odd man out, like Agassi, who inexplicably skipped the AO until 1995, and ironically that became his most successful Major as far as wins.

Going forward , the whole generation around the Sampras era, starting with Pete in 1989, all that group of ATP players it became almost mandatory to go to the AO, so 89-92 when those newcomers (Courier, Chang, Stich, Goran, Korda, Bruguera, Kraijeck,
Costa, etc) came of age they knew nothing but going to 4 Majors regularly.

So I would opine that in the last 30+ years the AO is equal in importance as the other Majors.

Now the French Open is another matter, except for the WTT days circa 1975-1978, most of the top players have played that tournament throughout the Open Era. It was the bete noire of such players as Pete Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Connors (only played it sporadically) and especially Johnny Mac who wanted to win it badly and came tantalizingly close in 1984. My fave Edberg also came sooo close to winning it after leading Chang but ultimately losing in 5 excruciating sets back in 1989. Even the serve and volley Aussies of the 60's and 70's made the trek to Paris to battle the red clay. Rod Laver won it in his Grand Slam year in 1969 and he was hardly a dirtballer.

I still miss the grass courts at Kooyong.....though I understand it is very expensive to maintain the grass,when they changed to AO to HC in 88.

 

[Bonaca]

You just called me an old lady. I don't think that was meant as a compliment. Look, I get this was a disappointing loss for Novak and his fans, but you are going to get push-back when you bully and bluster around.

Did I insult you personally before you call me a moron? Ever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Nice history recap, @Jelenafan!

TBH, I was really just tweaking ol' Bonaca's tail, since he was trying to downgrade RG. (That old trope that somehow clay doesn't count.) Of course I know that in this era, that we're talking about, if we're talking about the GOAT race, and for quite a while, all Slams are weighted the same. (I was just hoping no one would point that out. LOL!)

 

[Kieran]

I still miss the grass courts at Kooyong.....though I understand it is very expensive to maintain the grass,when they changed to AO to HC in 88.

It's a pity they changed that. The grass at Kooyong played differently to the grass at Wimbledon. It's one of the misconceptions people have, when they see the old game and sneer at three slams being played on grass, but the grass didn't play the same across the three slams. This is how Mats not only won Oz twice on grass, but defeated McEnroe there in 1983, I think. Yet Mats best result at Wimbledon was a QF. It would have been nice for either the USO to keep the clay it changed to in 1976, or Oz go for clay instead of hards. Rafa would have 200 slams by now.


Just kidding. I like the old traditional surfaces though, and wish the Oz had kept grass, and maybe the USO go to clay...

 

[Kieran]

The AO is always a tough one to judge.

Analyzing only from the Open Era (1968) onward I look at it this way,

Women's game, the AO didn't become a full fledged "have to go there , equal to the other Majors" until about 1981-82 when Chrissie and Martina started going there year in and year out and all the other women followed. By the time of Steffi Graff her whole career she traveled down to OZ as did all the top WTA. To put it in perspective , both Martina and Chrissie have said that in hindsight, if they had know the Majors would all count so much afterward in their legacy, they would have gone to the AO more.

Now most of the top men started going to the AO on a regular basis around 1983 onward, that year Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Johnny Mac, all went down and the next year the young Boris Becker started the annual trek. There were the odd man out, like Agassi, who inexplicably skipped the AO until 1995, and ironically that became his most successful Major as far as wins.

Going forward , the whole generation around the Sampras era, starting with Pete in 1989, all that group of ATP players it became almost mandatory to go to the AO, so 89-92 when those newcomers (Courier, Chang, Stich, Goran, Korda, Bruguera, Kraijeck,
Costa, etc) came of age they knew nothing but going to 4 Majors regularly.

So I would opine that in the last 30+ years the AO is equal in importance as the other Majors.

Now the French Open is another matter, except for the WTT days circa 1975-1978, most of the top players have played that tournament throughout the Open Era. It was the bete noire of such players as Pete Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Connors (only played it sporadically) and especially Johnny Mac who wanted to win it badly and came tantalizingly close in 1984. My fave Edberg also came sooo close to winning it after leading Chang but ultimately losing in 5 excruciating sets back in 1989. Even the serve and volley Aussies of the 60's and 70's made the trek to Paris to battle the red clay. Rod Laver won it in his Grand Slam year in 1969 and he was hardly a dirtballer.

That's a great summary, Jelena fan, thanks!

 

[calitennis127]

It was the same as Nalbandian in the sense that it contravened a rule that's there to protect people. Henman was likewise disqualified from Wimbledon for something similar. It's a simple rule and it has to be enforced so that players won't think they can barter their way out of trouble..

No, nowhere does the rule explicitly mandate that a player has to be disqualified for what Djokovic did. There does seem to be a consensus that the penalty was appropriate, but that is different than an explicit rule.

If you’re telling me that a player smacking a light line drive in a direction he is walking away from warrants an instant disqualification on a first offense, I simply disagree with you on whether the penalty suits the crime. It seems a lot like giving someone with no prior history of theft 5 years in prison for stealing a 6-pack of beer. I don’t think the penalty is justified by the crime.