Can You Say 2011??

[Front242]

^ And of course, Federer beating Roddick playing in that form just makes it a weak era :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

The one time Nadal and Roddick played on grass, it was a beat-down. This is not a slight against Roddick, but this is a bad match-up for him. Of course he's a better player than Rosol and Darcis and yes, he'd have a chance against Nadal on grass due to his serve alone, but he doesn't play from behind the baseline the way Rosol did THAT day.

This sort of argument is obtuse by the way: the same people who tell us that "Rosol would have beaten anyone that day and Nadal played great in that match" suddenly make it sound like it was an embarrassing loss against a mediocre player (which is not too far from the truth, by the way).

Regardless of where you stand, the way Rosol played that day is not reflective of his mediocre career. Even Roddick is incapable of hitting that way from both wings.

 

[Front242]

The one time Nadal and Roddick played on grass, it was a beat-down. This is not a slight against Roddick, but this is a bad match-up for him. Of course he's a better player than Rosol and Darcis and yes, he'd have a chance against Nadal on grass due to his serve alone, but he doesn't play from behind the baseline the way Rosol did THAT day.

This sort of argument is obtuse by the way: the same people who tell us that "Rosol would have beaten anyone that day and Nadal played great in that match" suddenly make it sound like it was an embarrassing loss against a mediocre player (which is not too far from the truth, by the way).

Regardless of where you stand, the way Rosol played that day is not reflective of his mediocre career. Even Roddick is incapable of hitting that way from both wings.

I checked the stats before your post while viewing their h2h and suddenly 7-5 6-4 is a beatdown?! Come on man, you're better than that

 

[Kieran]

The special thing about the Rosol match is that it was a sign of good health in the lower orders of the game, not anything that can be held against Rafa for long. That kind of display by Rosol is one we see players sustain maybe for a set, or two, but he was titanic all the way. As a fellow poster here told me, he was channeling Sampras.

But Rafa would improve in a tourney as he goes. If he met Roddick, it would be later in the event...

 

[brokenshoelace]

@Front.

He'd take either, buddy, you know he would. Prime Roddick is a dexterous term. Could happen on a Wednesday, might be Tuesday the following month before you see it again. Really, Roddick was at his best, for me, when he worked with Brad Gilbert. It was the height of stupidity for him to sack Gilbert, though I'm sure he had his reasons. He was at his best then. File that alongside Hewitt sacking Cahill, in the drawer labelled Clever Moves... :nono

Yeah, agree for sure about him being at his best when he worked with Gilbert. The rest I don't agree with. Prime Roddick's serve and forehand were monstrous and Nadal never faced that kind of Roddick at Wimbledon or the US Open.

But he's twice beaten Novak at the US Open. I gather that's a tougher match than Roddick.


PS: I willingly admit that my above argument is silly. Because it's a different match-up since Roddick has the serve to fall back on. However, if we're saying Nadal would lose to Roddick because he lost to Rosol and Darcis at Wimbledon, I'll use the same logic and say he'd beat him at the US Open because he beat Novak twice.

PPS: This debate is pointless.

PPPS: 2011 was more top heavy, with Murray, Federer (yes, he was a factor, he beat Novak once at the FO and almost did it again at the US Open. And he entered the AO as the favorite after winning the WTF and everyone thought him against Novak was a foregone conclusion in the semis. We saw what happened), and of course, Nadal. I don't think that's debatable. And what Novak did against those players was phenomenal.

However, 2006 had a deeper field. In other words, those in the top 4 weren't quite as good (again, not debatable), but there were more overall threats (which I don't think is debatable either). Again, if some are going to argue that the top 4 today are so dominant in part because "the field allows them to win so much," then you gotta admit that 2006 had an overall deeper field.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The one time Nadal and Roddick played on grass, it was a beat-down. This is not a slight against Roddick, but this is a bad match-up for him. Of course he's a better player than Rosol and Darcis and yes, he'd have a chance against Nadal on grass due to his serve alone, but he doesn't play from behind the baseline the way Rosol did THAT day.

This sort of argument is obtuse by the way: the same people who tell us that "Rosol would have beaten anyone that day and Nadal played great in that match" suddenly make it sound like it was an embarrassing loss against a mediocre player (which is not too far from the truth, by the way).

Regardless of where you stand, the way Rosol played that day is not reflective of his mediocre career. Even Roddick is incapable of hitting that way from both wings.

I checked the stats before your post while viewing their h2h and suddenly 7-5 6-4 is a beatdown?! Come man, you're better than that

It was a beatdown. I am absolutely not retracting that, because I remember the match vividly, as well as Roddick's astonished remarks after that about how well Nadal played. It was a match against Roddick on grass at Queens (faster grass than Wimbledon), how many times do you want Nadal to break him? Should the score be 6-2 6-2 for it to be a beatdown? Roddick didn't have a sniff that entire match. It really wasn't that competitive at all. I say this because I rewatched Nadal's entire Queens run recently (yes, including the Karlovic match). Context matters. The score alone is not a real reflexion.

 

[Front242]

^ I realize context tells a completely different story than the mere score. Just look at Golubev v Nadal, 1st round US Open 2011, but I still wouldn't deem straight sets with a close scoreline a beatdown, but that's me. And yeah, 6-2 6-2 is a beatdown 100%

 

[DarthFed]

Suddenly A-Rod is the benchmark.

We really do need some serious tennis to start again...

Nah, he is way weaker than Darcis and Rosol. If only Nadal could have had it so easy in 2012 and 2013...

I'm not sure what you're saying, buddy, that Roddick is worse than Darcis and Rosol? Now, I know you often sound like a weak era proponent, but that's stretching it, I'm sure...

I'm saying you might not cry so much about weak competition when Rafa has been taken out by trash at various times in his career.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And yeah, 6-2 6-2 is a beatdown 100%

But it's a virtually impossible score to get against Roddick on grass. He's going to have holds due to his serve alone. That doesn't always reflect the competitiveness of the match-up.

 

[Front242]

And yeah, 6-2 6-2 is a beatdown 100%

But it's a virtually impossible score to get against Roddick on grass. He's going to have holds due to his serve alone. That doesn't always reflect the competitiveness of the match-up.

I agree, but if the competition was indeed as weak as some people like to talk nonsense about in Fed's prime, surely someone as good as Nadal could beat this weak competition a bit better than 7-5 6-4. Not a jab at you but at those labelling Fed's prime a weak era. Prime Federer managed better scorelines against these guys after all That's why this diverted off to the likes of Blake and Roddick who in their primes gave a lot of trouble to Nadal and none to Federer so clearly they can't have been such weak competition. Federer was just a totally different player in his prime. And the same Nadal was good enough to beat Federer on hardcourts in his prime when they first met, which further backs up that he was pretty damn good even in 2004 and yet so was the supposed weak competition.

 

[Kieran]

Suddenly A-Rod is the benchmark.

We really do need some serious tennis to start again...

Nah, he is way weaker than Darcis and Rosol. If only Nadal could have had it so easy in 2012 and 2013...

I'm not sure what you're saying, buddy, that Roddick is worse than Darcis and Rosol? Now, I know you often sound like a weak era proponent, but that's stretching it, I'm sure...

I'm saying you might not cry so much about weak competition when Rafa has been taken out by trash at various times in his career.

At this rate, Rafa is about the same pace as Roger when it comes to making major finals. I don't cry, my friend, over any of it...

 

[masterclass]

Just watched Miami. Novak has that calm, precise, can't lose aura about him. He's ready to conquer in the rest of the year!

Lacatch, I don't know. From Djokovic's perspective, Miami is really the only tournament this year where he showed solid form at the end (no lapses), and he probably benefited from his three byes (one bye and two walkovers), given that this was the second in back-to-back masters. He beat 4 players in Miami, unseeded Chardy, #16 Robredo, #6 Murray, who obviously still isn't near his best, and then pretty much flattened a flat Nadal.

I need to see a lot more before saying he is back to 2011 form. This year he has suffered too many lapses in key moments. And the surprising thing is that he is doing this against all manner of players, not just the top 10. Losing sets to Federer or Nadal is one thing, but losing sets to challenger level players is another thing.

I think Federer actually contributed to producing a more confident Djokovic going into Miami, knowingly or not, at Indian Wells. In the final, Djokovic got back into the match in the second set, while Federer seemed to ease up or weaken. Nole was pretty much on top of him in the decider, until Federer stepped on the gas at 3-5, played a very good return game, and Nole again gave up a break serving for the match as he had been doing much of this year, to even things up. Federer seemed content NOT to go for the jugular on Nole's next serve and then in the tiebreaker, considering his recent surge of good play to break, Federer uncharacteristically produced too many unforced errors, didn't serve well, and Nole took full advantage and won the tiebreaker rather easily. Federer's comments after the match were rather curious.

"I was able to just keep the pressure on Novak and show him that if he slips up, I will be there"
"At the end, he made sure he kept the ball in play and I might have made a few too many errors when it really mattered," Federer said.

Now is Federer saying the former with respect to the match, or also for the future?

Djokovic, like most players, gain confidence with each match and title won.

Is a more confident Djokovic and a weaker Nadal better for Federer than a strong Nadal and a weaker Djokovic? Or does it really not matter?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[lacatch]

First off, God bless you Masterclass for bringing this thread back on topic . I totally get your points about how spotty Djokovic's play was during the first quarter. And I also agree that winning Indian Wells was a turning point (for the better). I know many folks on here love to cite statistics when predicting the future, and while I have a healthy respect for the numbers as well, was speaking more subjectively. Since Novak wears his heart on his sleeve, I was noticing the look in his eyes and that confident calmness that he showed in 2011. Of course he could flame out early in Monte Carlo and my comments could be BS in hindsight, but I'm going on a hunch......Will be an exciting clay season at any rate!

 

[Front242]

"I was able to just keep the pressure on Novak and show him that if he slips up, I will be there"
"At the end, he made sure he kept the ball in play and I might have made a few too many errors when it really mattered," Federer said.

Now is Federer saying the former with respect to the match, or also for the future?

Djokovic, like most players, gain confidence with each match and title won.

Is a more confident Djokovic and a weaker Nadal better for Federer than a strong Nadal and a weaker Djokovic? Or does it really not matter?

Unlike the Nadal v Federer matchup which has only got worse with age, Federer doesn't need Djokovic to be having an off day to beat him even at age 32. His matches against Novak win or lose are almost always very closely contested. I think he was just referring to that particular match because after falling down 3-5 in set 3 he managed to get it back to a final set TB. He knows he can beat Novak still but deep down must know his chances of beating Nadal now are slim except maybe in best of 3.

Regarding the last line, I guess a weaker Djokovic is likely better if Federer is in his quarter but then he'd only end up being a sacrificial lamb having beaten one only to lose to the other but either way I still maintain Federer can beat Djokovic regardless of how well he's playing if Fed himself has a good day, besides probably the AO where things are more difficult for an older Fed. Anywhere besides slow/medium hardcourts though Fed has a good shot still at beating Novak if he (Fed) is playing as he can still on a good day. Sadly the same can't be said when he plays Nadal as the outcome is just like Serena Williams v Sharapova these days. Losing to Djokovic probably helps in the slam count chances for Nadal though as Novak clearly has a better chance of beating Nadal than Roger has and beating Novak only makes things worse for Roger if both he and Nadal are at the latter stages of a big event. Makes me think...

Just kidding

 

[Ricardo]

He'd be grand, brother. He beat Federer at Wimbledon, remember? He'd handle A-Rod. And they're all good enough to win these things if it wasn't for the guys that beat them...

what bs is that again? Fed beat Roddick, and Nadal beat Fed so he'd handle Roddick is that what you are saying? if thats how tennis works, then if Fed beats Djoker while Nadal beats Fed, we should grant Nadal a win against Novak..... it's a foregone conclusion no?

funny how these things don't turn out that way more often than not, another witty observation from Kieran :snigger

 

[Ricardo]

^ That pup was good enough to beat Roger on hards the first time he met him so that's no excuse. But yeah, amazing forehands.

That's just a match-up thingy, brother, we all know that. :snigger

Blake had huge shots, but as I say, Rafa handled that when he hit his prime. That's not to insult Blake, the guy found his level and in some ways exceeded himself. I liked him, even more after that race controversy involving Hewitt, which I thought Blake handled with a huge amount of class...

exceeded himself? Blake was widely seen as an underachiever with undeniable ball striking talent with athleticism to match, yet didn't have the mental resolve to have gotten more results.

yet another witty observation from Kieran...... when it comes to tennis :clap

 

[Moxie]

First off, God bless you Masterclass for bringing this thread back on topic . I totally get your points about how spotty Djokovic's play was during the first quarter. And I also agree that winning Indian Wells was a turning point (for the better). I know many folks on here love to cite statistics when predicting the future, and while I have a healthy respect for the numbers as well, was speaking more subjectively. Since Novak wears his heart on his sleeve, I was noticing the look in his eyes and that confident calmness that he showed in 2011. Of course he could flame out early in Monte Carlo and my comments could be BS in hindsight, but I'm going on a hunch......Will be an exciting clay season at any rate!

It already starts with a really competitive field in MC, and Federer is in. Djokovic defending. This is one of the best MC fields in years, and the stakes are high. I agree that Novak looked fearsome and "2011" in Miami, so we'll just see if it carries over.