2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[Nadalfan2013]

This thread about Djokovic's humiliating loss to Nadal will soon surpass the official Djokovic fans thread with the amount of replies. All of this because of Bonaca, Cali relentless tears. Epic.

 

[Ricardo]

I never said it’s the only skill he has, I said it’s his main weapon everything else is based on.
Funny you think I’m a huge fanboy, I give a shit about the person Djokovic, my motivation is something different.
To give him credit is not my job, you do it good enough.
He never has beaten peak Novak.
Never said they play their worst, always said there are 3 goats with small differences.
Some are hiding, some prepare excuses of you nadalboys and girls in front of RG, simple fact, now it’s easy to bullshit around. And lot of the nadaltards came out of the holes and began to write epic shit.
Not only , but mostly because of his rabbit skills.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Has anybody ever beat peak Djoker?

 

[Moxie]

I never said it’s the only skill he has, I said it’s his main weapon everything else is based on.
Funny you think I’m a huge fanboy, I give a shit about the person Djokovic, my motivation is something different.
To give him credit is not my job, you do it good enough.
He never has beaten peak Novak.
Never said they play their worst, always said there are 3 goats with small differences.
Some are hiding, some prepare excuses of you nadalboys and girls in front of RG, simple fact, now it’s easy to bullshit around. And lot of the nadaltards came out of the holes and began to write epic shit.
Not only , but mostly because of his rabbit skills.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Curious what your motivation is, championing Novak, if it isn't as a fan. Perhaps you work for the Chamber of Commerce in Belgrade?

You walk back every comment you ever make when you get called on it. That's a fact. You say that running isn't Nadal's only skill, because you get called on it. But previously you have absolutely said that. Even in the above you say, "but mostly because of his rabbit skills." I guess you just can't help yourself. But it does make you a horse's ass, just to be clear.

And once again you say that Rafa has never beaten "peak" Novak. That is absolutely not true. At the very least, Novak played the best he could at the SFs of RG in 2013, and lost. And at the F of USO 2013 and lost. What you think you can get away with, but can't, is the same thing that Federer fans try: If your man loses to Nadal, then, by definition, he wasn't playing his best. This is because you downgrade Nadal. But it's crystal clear that why they don't seem "peak" when they play him, is because they are being dominated. You need to accept this.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

 

[Moxie]

Marion Vajda has come out claiming that Djokovic couldn't play 100% in the final because of the 5-setter he'd played v. Tsitsipas on the previous Friday. (3 hours 45 minutes.) This may be so, but in that case, Djokovic isn't the fit player that everyone keeps claiming he is, who has years left in him. He has come back from longer semis to win the title, and he's certainly come back to turn in a better performance than what he did. Nadal should get every credit for having a game plan and executing it against his big rival, that's obvious. But if Djokovic, at 33, hasn't got the stuff for recovery, then perhaps we can stop pretending he's the fittest guy on tour and will carry on winning Slams for the next 5 years.

Marian Vajda: ''Novak Djokovic a perdu de l'énergie contre Tsitsipas''

Novak Djokovic avait déjà usé de beaucoup d’énergie avant d’affronter Rafael Nadal à Roland Garros

www.tennisworldfr.com

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Marion Vajda has come out claiming that Djokovic couldn't play 100% in the final because of the 5-setter he'd played v. Tsitsipas on the previous Friday. (3 hours 45 minutes.) This may be so, but in that case, Djokovic isn't the fit player that everyone keeps claiming he is, who has years left in him. He has come back from longer semis to win the title, and he's certainly come back to turn in a better performance than what he did. Nadal should get every credit for having a game plan and executing it against his big rival, that's obvious. But if Djokovic, at 33, hasn't got the stuff for recovery, then perhaps we can stop pretending he's the fittest guy on tour and will carry on winning Slams for the next 5 years.

Marian Vajda: ''Novak Djokovic a perdu de l'énergie contre Tsitsipas''

Novak Djokovic avait déjà usé de beaucoup d’énergie avant d’affronter Rafael Nadal à Roland Garros

www.tennisworldfr.com

Oh please? Novak should have won that match in straight sets,he let the young Greek back into the match,.Tsitsipas sustained a leg injury towards the latter part of the match,he might have pulled off an upset.
Next Excuse?

 

[Moxie]

Oh please? Novak should have won that match in straight sets,he let the young Greek back into the match,.Tsitsipas sustained a leg injury towards the latter part of the match,he might have pulled off an upset.
Next Excuse?

I still have yet to watch that SF, but my understanding is that both had chances. But in any case, yes, it's a huge excuse for what was a blow-out in the final. My point is: it doesn't bode well for the argument that Novak has at least 5 good years in him, and 1-2 Majors per year, if he can blow a lead, and then the long match puts him so far off.

 

[El Dude]

It will be interesting to see in what manner Rafa and Novak go from where they are now--the top two players in the game, if by smaller margins than during their respective primes--to retirement.

The gap between them and the field, with Roger there at various points during their primes, has grown more narrow. Will they still remain relevant for years to come, just with gradually diminishing returns? Or will there be a tipping point after which they suddenly stop winning?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I still have yet to watch that SF, but my understanding is that both had chances. But in any case, yes, it's a huge excuse for what was a blow-out in the final. My point is: it doesn't bode well for the argument that Novak has at least 5 good years in him, and 1-2 Majors per year, if he can blow a lead, and then the long match puts him so far off.

Another factor is Novak's concentration level,which has waned in a lot of his matches in 2020,considering it was a short season,maybe the longer off season will do him the world of good going forward in 2021.

 

[Moxie]

It will be interesting to see in what manner Rafa and Novak go from where they are now--the top two players in the game, if by smaller margins than during their respective primes--to retirement.

The gap between them and the field, with Roger there at various points during their primes, has grown more narrow. Will they still remain relevant for years to come, just with gradually diminishing returns? Or will there be a tipping point after which they suddenly stop winning?

I think it's still fair to talk about all 3 of them in this context, as their fading seems not completely dissimilar. It's been very slow, obviously, but chinks appear in the armor: inability to close, inconsistency day-to-day, seeming lapses in focus/motivation. The gap with the field has grown more narrow. As much as @mrzz keeps predicting each year that this will finally be the one where the Big 3 stop winning Majors, I think we can see that the end of domination has been gradual, but it is coming. What I'm saying, I guess, in response to your conjecture, is that I don't think it will be sudden...it hasn't been, but I think the idea that they'll keep winning big prizes for "years to come" seems unlikely, as well. The heathens are at the gate, and the door is ever closing behind the Big 2 and 3. Who knows what Roger will bring to his comeback, or what the 2021 calendar will yet be like, but it doesn't seem hard to image that 2 of the next 4 Majors might be won by other than the usual suspects. And the chances go down from there.

 

[El Dude]

I think it's still fair to talk about all 3 of them in this context, as their fading seems not completely dissimilar. It's been very slow, obviously, but chinks appear in the armor: inability to close, inconsistency day-to-day, seeming lapses in focus/motivation. The gap with the field has grown more narrow. As much as @mrzz keeps predicting each year that this will finally be the one where the Big 3 stop winning Majors, I think we can see that the end of domination has been gradual, but it is coming. What I'm saying, I guess, in response to your conjecture, is that I don't think it will be sudden...it hasn't been, but I think the idea that they'll keep winning big prizes for "years to come" seems unlikely, as well. The heathens are at the gate, and the door is ever closing behind the Big 2 and 3. Who knows what Roger will bring to his comeback, or what the 2021 calendar will yet be like, but it doesn't seem hard to image that 2 of the next 4 Majors might be won by other than the usual suspects. And the chances go down from there.

Yes, well said. Just after I wrote the above I had the thought that Rafa and Novak seem to be following a similar trajectory as Roger, just a few years behind. The main difference, though, is that they don't have two GOATs coming up behind them, so are able to maintain their dominance longer. But guys like Thiem and Medvedev--not to mention Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, etc--are starting to enter their prime, so the gap is narrowing.

We don't know how Roger will come back, but I think the version we saw in late 2018 to the AO this year is more comparable with the next tier. He's dropped a notch, even if it is on the same spectrum: a high level at times, but greater inconsistency. The only way he wins a Slam in 2021 is if he's able to muster his peak level for seven matches in a row, or at least the last two or three when he'll be facing guys he can't just cruise over with his B-game. There are also so many landmines now, with a solid second tier forming, that even a QF might be very tough.

 

[Ricardo]

If someone close to 40 hasn’t dropped a notch or more, nobody should ever retire. He was top notch though in Wimbledon, only he lost in the final where a match with such lob sided stats favour the loser never happened before....most spectacular choke ever.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, well said. Just after I wrote the above I had the thought that Rafa and Novak seem to be following a similar trajectory as Roger, just a few years behind. The main difference, though, is that they don't have two GOATs coming up behind them, so are able to maintain their dominance longer. But guys like Thiem and Medvedev--not to mention Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, etc--are starting to enter their prime, so the gap is narrowing.

We don't know how Roger will come back, but I think the version we saw in late 2018 to the AO this year is more comparable with the next tier. He's dropped a notch, even if it is on the same spectrum: a high level at times, but greater inconsistency. The only way he wins a Slam in 2021 is if he's able to muster his peak level for seven matches in a row, or at least the last two or three when he'll be facing guys he can't just cruise over with his B-game. There are also so many landmines now, with a solid second tier forming, that even a QF might be very tough.

Interesting thought about the 2nd tier as "landmines": it could work for or against any of the Big 3. I think it's fair to say that, at their "best," (relative to being mid-late 30s,) they're all still better than the field. But given increasing inconsistencies, as we discussed, plus increased confidence, ability and battle-hardness by this "2nd tier," two of the 3 could be eliminated early enough to clear the way for one to emerge. For example, Roger at next year's Wimbledon. Sort of what happened at the 2019 for Nadal. I say this because I'm not sure that however much "dragonslayers" they are becoming, I'm not sure I see any of them going through all of the Big 3, or even 1 or 2 to hold the trophy at the end. This year's USO was rather a war of attrition, once Djokovic was out. It certainly wasn't that Thiem was so impressive tearing through the draw. With all of the Big 3 in a Major, I don't see anyone in the next group down as turning into that player who takes the tournament by storm, in the way that Roger, Rafa and Djokovic have done. I could be wrong, and someone could emerge is that player, but they still seem a bit wan to me when it comes to putting together the grit, guts and game for 7 matches. Who really knows what 2021 will bring, but my theory is that those guys might still function as spoilers more often than they emerge champions, at least at Slams.

 

[Moxie]

If someone close to 40 hasn’t dropped a notch or more, nobody should ever retire. He was top notch though in Wimbledon, only he lost in the final where a match with such lob sided stats favour the loser never happened before....most spectacular choke ever.

Jim Courier recently was quoted as saying that Novak "stole" that match. I know there was a lot of arguing about what happened, but, as a reasonably dispassionate viewer, I was completely shocked that Roger blew it when he had CPs on his racquet. I really do think this kind of thing is a consequence of age, and wanting it too much. He tightened up, in a way that he wouldn't have when he was younger. While I think "most spectacular choke ever" is quite the superlative, given the occasion, the venue and the meaning for tennis history, you might just be right.

 

[El Dude]

If someone close to 40 hasn’t dropped a notch or more, nobody should ever retire. He was top notch though in Wimbledon, only he lost in the final where a match with such lob sided stats favour the loser never happened before....most spectacular choke ever.

Well, he hasn't had a year of wear-and-tear on his body, so I think has a chance of coming back in similar form to 2019--after he throws off the rust, that is. So I expect (or hope for) more of the same in 2021 as we saw in 2019: Overall very good play, but only reaching previous heights for short periods of time. If he times it right, he could win Wimbledon.

Looking back at that match vs Djokovic, he was 36-32 in games. Really tragic, and the Federer loss that I found more disheartening than any other.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting thought about the 2nd tier as "landmines": it could work for or against any of the Big 3. I think it's fair to say that, at their "best," (relative to being mid-late 30s,) they're all still better than the field. But given increasing inconsistencies, as we discussed, plus increased confidence, ability and battle-hardness by this "2nd tier," two of the 3 could be eliminated early enough to clear the way for one to emerge. For example, Roger at next year's Wimbledon. Sort of what happened at the 2019 for Nadal. I say this because I'm not sure that however much "dragonslayers" they are becoming, I'm not sure I see any of them going through all of the Big 3, or even 1 or 2 to hold the trophy at the end. This year's USO was rather a war of attrition, once Djokovic was out. It certainly wasn't that Thiem was so impressive tearing through the draw. With all of the Big 3 in a Major, I don't see anyone in the next group down as turning into that player who takes the tournament by storm, in the way that Roger, Rafa and Djokovic have done. I could be wrong, and someone could emerge is that player, but they still seem a bit wan to me when it comes to putting together the grit, guts and game for 7 matches. Who really knows what 2021 will bring, but my theory is that those guys might still function as spoilers more often than they emerge champions, at least at Slams.

Someone pointed out in one thread that Thiem and Medvedev have equalled the Big Three in best-of-threes, but don't quite have the mental fortitude to consistently beat them in in Slams. I tend to agree with that.

I'd like to think that Thiem's win at the USO will bolster his confidence, but he didn't have to beat any of the Big Three. (In fact, I imagine he's the first Slam winner in x-years who hasn't had to beat one to win a Slam - will have to research that).

The other thing which I keep re-emphasizing--for years now--is that there's only one direction the Big Three can go, which is gradual decline, while there are more and more young guys getting better each year. 2021 really could be a total free-for-all, with a bunch of different players reaching the finals of Slams and Masters. Should be interesting.

 

[El Dude]

Jim Courier recently was quoted as saying that Novak "stole" that match. I know there was a lot of arguing about what happened, but, as a reasonably dispassionate viewer, I was completely shocked that Roger blew it when he had CPs on his racquet. I really do think this kind of thing is a consequence of age, and wanting it too much. He tightened up, in a way that he wouldn't have when he was younger. While I think "most spectacular choke ever" is quite the superlative, given the occasion, the venue and the meaning for tennis history, you might just be right.

It has been his fatal flaw for awhile now. I don't think it is as much age, as the consequence of his early career: He wasn't really challenged, except by Rafa on clay, and didn't learn to deal with not being the best player on the court, like Rafa and Novak did. All those years at #2 and #3, respectively, tempered Rafa and Novak in a way that Roger didn't experience.

It is also why I have said that Rafa is the greatest competitor the sport has ever seen. He rarely blows matches like that, and is never fully beaten until "game-set-match."

 

[Moxie]

Someone pointed out in one thread that Thiem and Medvedev have equalled the Big Three in best-of-threes, but don't quite have the mental fortitude to consistently beat them in in Slams. I tend to agree with that.

I'd like to think that Thiem's win at the USO will bolster his confidence, but he didn't have to beat any of the Big Three. (In fact, I imagine he's the first Slam winner in x-years who hasn't had to beat one to win a Slam - will have to research that).

The other thing which I keep re-emphasizing--for years now--is that there's only one direction the Big Three can go, which is gradual decline, while there are more and more young guys getting better each year. 2021 really could be a total free-for-all, with a bunch of different players reaching the finals of Slams and Masters. Should be interesting.

As to your last, I know we keep waiting for the "free-for-all" since a couple of years. Maybe this year. As to the bolded, about who was the last player to win a Slam without going through any of the big 3...without looking it up, Safin beat Roger to win 2005 AO. I feel positive that no-one has done it since then, besides Thiem. So it means the last Slam before that that didn't feature Roger. I think it was the 2004 French Open. Gaudio d. Coria. Feel free to check my math.

 

[El Dude]

As to your last, I know we keep waiting for the "free-for-all" since a couple of years. Maybe this year. As to the bolded, about who was the last player to win a Slam without going through any of the big 3...without looking it up, Safin beat Roger to win 2005 AO. I feel positive that no-one has done it since then, besides Thiem. So it means the last Slam before that that didn't feature Roger. I think it was the 2004 French Open. Gaudio d. Coria. Feel free to check my math.

It shouldn't take too long because, frankly, there haven't been many non-Big Three Slams for over 15 years. Here is the list of all non-Big Three Slam winners from Roger's first Slam (2003 Wimbledon) to the present, with which members of the Big Three they defeated en route to the title.

2020 USO: Thiem - none
2016 USO: Wawrinka - Novak F
2016 WIM: Murray - none
2015 FO: Wawrinka - Novak F, Roger QF
2014 AO: Wawrinka - Rafa F, Novak QF
2014 USO: Cilic - Roger SF
2013 WIM: Murray - Novak F
2012 USO: Murray - Novak F
2009 USO: del Potro - Roger F, Rafa SF
2005 AO: Safin - Roger SF
2004 RG: Gaudio - none
2003 USO: Roddick - none

So the only one you really missed was Andy in 2016 at Wimbledon. For some reason I thought he beat Novak, but Novak was beaten by Sam Querrey in the 3R, Roger lost lost to Raonic in the SF, and Rafa to Verdasco in 1R.

 

[Nadalfan2013]