Can you see Djokovic winning the singles gold medal at Tokyo 2020?

[Moxie]

Well we almost agree. In 2004 we were talking a Fed who only had 6 losses including that one in the Olympics and won 3 slams. That was an enormous upset. Berdych became a thorn later on in big matches when Roger was past his prime and Berdych had become a little better himself. And you're right about 2008 being a tough summer but still, he lost to Blake in the QF. It was shocking. I also remember that 2012 semi well. It was a great match in part because you could see how both men were struggling badly to handle the pressure. It became a titanic struggle in the last couple sets but a lot of it was due to the fact it wasn't really great play from either side of the net. That actually added to it in the end.

In a way, I'm not sure what you're saying, then. While I was trying to be generous, you're saying that Roger should have won the Gold in 2004, which I agree with, tbh. If you want to blame him for a missed chance, that was it. 2008, we both agree he was having a rough summer, losing to Blake, or whatever. He wouldn't have beaten Rafa, anyway. It wasn't his summer. In 2012, Del Potro played the better match, and to Roger's credit, he was not going to lose that match, and he didn't. It was a long slog, and Fed came out with the win. A heartbreaker for Del Potro. Then Federer didn't have enough for the final, and Murray was on song, and the local favorite. As I've said, bad timing. I think you can say the same for Djokovic. He's had a lot of dominant years in the last few, but they haven't been Olympic years. I don't know why you resist the notion of bad timing and bad luck. The Olympics only come up every 4 years. Even great tennis players with long careers only have about 12-16 years in them, and their peak-prime years or best periods don't necessarily coincide with the Olympics.

 

[DarthFed]

^ On a fast hard court in 2008 I wouldn't say a Federer-Rafa final would have been a foregone conclusion even with the mental edge. Roger was miles better than Rafa on that stuff but obviously Rafa had a mountain of confidence at that point. Either way at the very least he should've cruised to that final, it was Blake in the QF's and then Gonzo in the semis. Even on his worst day back then he is usually sweeping those guys in straights...usually. And I know Nole hasn't been at 2011 or 2015 level for most of this year but we are still talking a guy who has won 2 out of 3 slams and 4 MS events. It has been a dominant year so even with knowing what DP can do it was a pretty shocking loss.

I don't buy bad luck in the losses is all I'm saying. It's not like they slipped on a tennis ball right before the Olympics and were unable to play.

 

[Moxie]

^ On a fast hard court in 2008 I wouldn't say a Federer-Rafa final would have been a foregone conclusion even with the mental edge. Roger was miles better than Rafa on that stuff but obviously Rafa had a mountain of confidence at that point. Either way at the very least he should've cruised to that final, it was Blake in the QF's and then Gonzo in the semis. Even on his worst day back then he is usually sweeping those guys in straights...usually. And I know Nole hasn't been at 2011 or 2015 level for most of this year but we are still talking a guy who has won 2 out of 3 slams and 4 MS events. It has been a dominant year so even with knowing what DP can do it was a pretty shocking loss.

I don't buy bad luck in the losses is all I'm saying. It's not like they slipped on a tennis ball right before the Olympics and were unable to play.

OK, doll, I've tried to work with you on this, but all I can understand from you is basically frustration at the losses we're talking about. If you don't buy bad luck/timing, and you've conceded that they all want to win for country and suffer the same pressures on that front, then...what? As talented as Roger and Novak are they just blew it? A few times?

 

[teddytennisfan]

I never said that the pressure was different for Roger and Novak than it was for Rafa and Murray. To the latter group's credit they've handled it better on the Olympics stage is all. Roger had crazy head scratching losses in both 2004 (Berdych) and 2008 (Blake) on fast hard courts. He was overwhelming favorite to win the tournament in 2004 and despite the bad summer he had in 2008 he was probably easily #2 favorite that time too. A similar surface to the USO where he mopped up 5 straight starting in 2004 and ending in 2008. 2012 was a different scenario and it goes without saying the marathon he had with Del Po in the semis hurt his cause but it was his fault for needing to go so long with Del Po while Murray got through Djokovic a lot easier.

i think both your assessments make sense because they add the different ways of seeing how players - like in the career itself (and i think in life also) - just have to be putting everything together just at the righ conditions .

in some ways - because we're mainly talking about the ''big names" - u know, repeatedly proven achievers in history - we all can fairly say that they each are the ''main contenders" in these respective times when their games, their careers, are at their best packaging -- and then it's a matter of them ''taking it" -supposing only that everything ELSE falls together. ...draws, whatever...that are out of their control personally..

maybe that's what happned with roger during these years as one of the ''top-condition" players out there , like when he met ANDY MURRAY right after wimbledon...if any didn't get that KICK somehow - maybe rogers ''peak" at that very time would have been enough for a gold..as he swept away everyone on his draw just like he would in wbimledon throughout much of his career.

or the way RAFA just ''rode that wave" in 2008 -..

in a way it IS ''LUCK" - 'timing" or wwhatever we call it - but WHEN the moment does arrive -- at their peaks or not -- if they're ready to GRAb IT -- AND no one else is as ready -- it's theirs.

it's like -- whoever ''shows up for the job" , took the bus on time, spoke to the right person..whatever...

luck and readiness to grab the moment, and i think that's what both of you are saying..

 

[DarthFed]

Oh my dear Foxie this has gone on too long. You probably think I'm being as stubborn as I think you're being here. Just a difference of opinion though we agree on a lot of the issue. Just the fact that it only comes around once every 4 years adds a lot more pressure for everyone. To say they blew it may sound harsh but I just think the pressure has gotten the better of them at the Olympics.

 

[teddytennisfan]

what do you all think about the ones that are left? i mean -- what's your assessment so far for those that you've seen? if that is reasonable to judge just by their performances in THIS week so far? i know it's hard to tell becuse we couldn't even really imagine any of the top players to go out so soon ...although saying that is probably DISRESPECTFUL to the players that took them down: svitolina, puig, etc..

right now -- apart from still basing my assessment on their 'past achievements" -- such as for rafa, andy, del potro -- i am frankly NOT sure AT ALL.

 

[Moxie]

Oh my dear Foxie this has gone on too long. You probably think I'm being as stubborn as I think you're being here. Just a difference of opinion though we agree on a lot of the issue. Just the fact that it only comes around once every 4 years adds a lot more pressure for everyone. To say they blew it may sound harsh but I just think the pressure has gotten the better of them at the Olympics.

I'm so hoping that "Foxie" is not just a slip of the finger. I get you. We do agree more than we disagree. The Olympics offers odd pressures. I'll stop now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger losing to Berdych in 2004 was a huge upset. In fact, for a few years after that, until Berdych actually did something semi-worthwhile consistently, that was his main claim to fame.

 

[Federberg]

I'd be surprised if he weren't considered a top contender, but I'd also be surprised if he won it at 33. Think of this: at 31, Roger had the best set-up, for him, to finally get a gold medal: on grass, at the All-England Club, where he'd just won Wimbledon a few weeks before, against the same guy, and yet he came away with the silver. That result was due to a very good and determined Andy, whose time had finally come; but it was also, in part, due to Roger's age.

don't forget Del Potro draining him in the semi-final. Might have been different if Roger had been able to straight set him. That crowd in the final was uber-Murray, so I'm in no way saying that Roger would have won that, but his chances would have been much greater

 

[Moxie]

don't forget Del Potro draining him in the semi-final. Might have been different if Roger had been able to straight set him. That crowd in the final was uber-Murray, so I'm in no way saying that Roger would have won that, but his chances would have been much greater

I'm not forgetting that. That's the part I'm attributing to his age. And I know that Roger is used to being adored, especially at the All-England Club, but it was the Olympics and he was playing a Brit. He should have been prepared for that, at least. Sure, things might have been different, but they weren't. That's my point about luck and timing.

 

[Mastoor]

Lets be realistic. In 2008 No1e won bronze, in 2012 he lost bronze medal match and in 2016 he ended up in the first round, so we can predict that in 2020 he won't even qualify.

Luckily, the Olympics doesn't even count as a tennis tournament, so No1e doesn't have to worry about not winning it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Luckily, the Olympics doesn't even count as a tennis tournament, so No1e doesn't have to worry about not winning it.

Should have told him that before he left the court in tears. Pretty sure Novak doesn't care whether the Olympics count as a tennis tournament (oh, and it does, for the record), it means a lot to him anyway.

 

[Mastoor]

Should have told him that before he left the court in tears. Pretty sure Novak doesn't care whether the Olympics count as a tennis tournament (oh, and it does, for the record), it means a lot to him anyway.

Well, someone was supposed to tell Novak that long ago and also having Becker as a coach doesn't help neither. Tennis as and Olympic event was marketed by German state for Graf and Becker so having Becker for a coach doesn't help to understand that Olympics is NOT a reputable tennis tournament for many reasons.

 

[Mastoor]

And one more thing bs.Can you try to explain why do you think Olympic gold in tennis should be considered as good as a slam or masters or atp final titles? Among top 10 best players ever most never took part in the Olympics, while from the rest, only Nadal won gold (Fed, No1e and Sampras didn't). So how is an event not played by the best in the sport and not won by anyone among them except Nadal counted as an important tennis tournament? Doesn't make sense.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, someone was supposed to tell Novak that long ago and also having Becker as a coach doesn't help neither. Tennis as and Olympic event was marketed by German state for Graf and Becker so having Becker for a coach doesn't help to understand that Olympics is NOT a reputable tennis tournament for many reasons.

This might be true, but the fact is the players treat it as a legit tournament and a big one at that. They clearly take it more seriously than any non-slam event.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And one more thing bs.Can you try to explain why do you think Olympic gold in tennis should be considered as good as a slam or masters or atp final titles? Among top 10 best players ever most never took part in the Olympics, while from the rest, only Nadal won gold (Fed, No1e and Sampras didn't). So how is an event not played by the best in the sport and not won by anyone among them except Nadal counted as an important tennis tournament? Doesn't make sense.

Olympic gold should never be considered as good as a slam, obviously. It's not even close.

As to why it's a bigger deal than a masters tournament? Because for the past 13 years or so (pretty much since Federer claimed it's a big deal for him to win it) it clearly means more for the players than a Masters tournament. You think your boy would prefer to win the one masters that eluded him (Cinci) over an Olympic gold? I don't think you'll be seeing him crying if he loses a match in the great state of Ohio any time soon.

 

[Carol]

And one more thing bs.Can you try to explain why do you think Olympic gold in tennis should be considered as good as a slam or masters or atp final titles? Among top 10 best players ever most never took part in the Olympics, while from the rest, only Nadal won gold (Fed, No1e and Sampras didn't). So how is an event not played by the best in the sport and not won by anyone among them except Nadal counted as an important tennis tournament? Doesn't make sense.

Ask Federer and Novak which always have took part in the Olympics if they would have liked to win one Olympic GM in singles

 

[Ricardo]

Lets be realistic. In 2008 No1e won bronze, in 2012 he lost bronze medal match and in 2016 he ended up in the first round, so we can predict that in 2020 he won't even qualify.

Luckily, the Olympics doesn't even count as a tennis tournament, so No1e doesn't have to worry about not winning it.

By the same token someone should've told Fed to stop trying since it's a waste of time for them professionals. Damn, should simply pull the plug for tennis as an Olympic event.

 

[Ricardo]

Ask Federer and Novak which always have took part in the Olympics if they would have liked to win one Olympic GM in singles

Maybe Fed and Nole are simply stupid.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Maybe Fed and Nole are simply stupid.

What's stupid about wanting to be an Olympic gold medal winner?