Did Djokovic really play that poorly?

[Kieran]

^ Debatable. If Nole had showed up and played decent it might have been a competitive match. Just out of curiosity would you say Wimbledon 2008 was Roger's to lose given he had won 65 straight on grass and was playing someone he had beaten the past 2 years and someone who had won nothing off clay?

No, because by then Rafa was the better man and Rafa was young the two previous years. Since Rafa peaked, Roger hasn't beaten him at slam level - anywhere. So we can see in retrospect that Rafa beating Roger in that final was no huge surprise.

Rafa beat Nole last September on hards, and he was 6-0 over five on clay going into the final on Sunday, so he's taken on Nole since Nole hit his peak and more than held his own...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I felt that Novak should win that match. IMO when he is on top of his game he is bullying Rafa around at will and eventually is going to win regardless of surface.

Sure, but did you ever wonder why he's never been able to do it at Roland Garros, and in 3 consecutive years, wasn't really at his best in hot conditions? Is it a coincidence that the one time Novak really dominated Nadal at RG was for one set in 2012, after the weather had changed mid match and it started raining?

 

[DarthFed]

^ Same reason Nole has looked awful at every slam loss since RG 2012 except parts of RG 2013.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Debatable. If Nole had showed up and played decent it might have been a competitive match. Just out of curiosity would you say Wimbledon 2008 was Roger's to lose given he had won 65 straight on grass and was playing someone he had beaten the past 2 years and someone who had won nothing off clay?

No, because by then Rafa was the better man and Rafa was young the two previous years. Since Rafa peaked, Roger hasn't beaten him at slam level - anywhere. So we can see in retrospect that Rafa beating Roger in that final was no huge surprise.

Rafa beat Nole last September on hards, and he was 6-0 over five on clay going into the final on Sunday, so he's taken on Nole since Nole hit his peak and more than held his own...

We aren't talking in retrospect here for Rafa and Nole. And Rafa hasn't even proved to be better on grass than Roger since 2008. It was a weak loss even in retrospect.

 

[Kieran]

Darth, you have a view that if a player loses, it's extremely bad and only a victory is a sign of a good performance. There doesn't seem to be an in-between, where you might say a man did his best, played as well as he could, but lost. Rafa lost in the Oz final in 2012, and the US Open final in 2011, but I'd never consider these bad losses because he left everything out there and the better man won.

Nole did well on Sunday considering he clearly wasn't well...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

But isn't it difficult for a player to play "close to his best" when he's visibly ailing?

And am I missing something: is beating Rafa in Paris not still the Everest of sports? Therefore, Nole getting a set from him should be considered to be what we expect, no? Had he dropped a calf in straights, maybe there should be an inquest, but again I'm asking this: are people holding Nole to a higher standard than they hold Nadal? Nadal is near-invincible in Paris...

That's why I stated from the start that I assume Novak's illness gave him little chances to perform at the level required to beat Nadal in such conditions. But it's hard to tell just how much he suffered from it and if you look at Nadal's level in isolation it seemed principally beatable for Nole, so for people who supported him this loss hurts even if there might be a comprehensive explanation why he couldn't make it in the end.

 

[Kieran]

^ Debatable. If Nole had showed up and played decent it might have been a competitive match. Just out of curiosity would you say Wimbledon 2008 was Roger's to lose given he had won 65 straight on grass and was playing someone he had beaten the past 2 years and someone who had won nothing off clay?

No, because by then Rafa was the better man and Rafa was young the two previous years. Since Rafa peaked, Roger hasn't beaten him at slam level - anywhere. So we can see in retrospect that Rafa beating Roger in that final was no huge surprise.

Rafa beat Nole last September on hards, and he was 6-0 over five on clay going into the final on Sunday, so he's taken on Nole since Nole hit his peak and more than held his own...

We aren't talking in retrospect here for Rafa and Nole. And Rafa hasn't even proved to be better on grass than Roger since 2008. It was a weak loss even in retrospect.

No he hasn't, that's true, but when he faces Roger, it would be a huge surprise to me if Rafa lost to him in a major, anywhere, since 2007...

 

[DarthFed]

Certainly that's the case now with Roger on his deathbed tennis-wise. But in 2008 he could still play, but didn't step up and defend his territory.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, you have a view that if a player loses, it's extremely bad and only a victory is a sign of a good performance. There doesn't seem to be an in-between, where you might say a man did his best, played as well as he could, but lost. Rafa lost in the Oz final in 2012, and the US Open final in 2011, but I'd never consider these bad losses because he left everything out there and the better man won.

Nole did well on Sunday considering he clearly wasn't well...

When is the loser someone to be respected. Sports are about proving your superiority. Aside from dying on the court what can a tennis player do worse than losing?

 

[Kieran]

Certainly that's the case now with Roger on his deathbed tennis-wise. But in 2008 he could still play, but didn't step up and defend his territory.

Anyway, let's not drag this thread into another Fedal one. :snigger

I think this loss is one that Nole may take time to recover from...

 

[Kieran]

Darth, you have a view that if a player loses, it's extremely bad and only a victory is a sign of a good performance. There doesn't seem to be an in-between, where you might say a man did his best, played as well as he could, but lost. Rafa lost in the Oz final in 2012, and the US Open final in 2011, but I'd never consider these bad losses because he left everything out there and the better man won.

Nole did well on Sunday considering he clearly wasn't well...

When is the loser someone to be respected. Sports are about proving your superiority. Aside from dying on the court what can a tennis player do worse than losing?

That's very silly, buddy. If a player tries his hardest, he has nothing to be ashamed of and lot to be respected for. What can be worse than losing? You prolly missed Gael Monfils fifth set against Andy... :nono

 

[DarthFed]

^ And yet, same result as if he lost 9-7. Fact of the matter is he wasn't good enough and didn't deserve to win.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Sure, but did you ever wonder why he's never been able to do it at Roland Garros, and in 3 consecutive years, wasn't really at his best in hot conditions? Is it a coincidence that the one time Novak really dominated Nadal at RG was for one set in 2012, after the weather had changed mid match and it started raining?

For me their last three Roland Garros-meetings show that the additional bounce on Chatrier in hot conditions influences significantly how the usual rally-patterns play out. Excluding the period during the drizzle in 2012, even in the sets he won Novak had a much harder time opening up the court and staying in control of rallies with his backhand than in their last four matches or even stretches of the meetings in Canada and the US Open. Further Nadal could regularly turn rallies around with one shot and finish with an easy looking winner on the next, whereas Novak struggled to turn defence into offence at all.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Same reason Nole has looked awful at every slam loss since RG 2012 except parts of RG 2013.

Uh, no, it's really not. I'm sorry, but equating playing Andy Murray at Wimbledon or the US Open (no disrespect to Murray) to playing Rafael Nadal on Chatrier in hot conditions is insane.

 

[calitennis127]

This notion that the conditions at RG on a sunny hot day are impossible to cope with when facing Nadal is only true to a point. For most players, I agree with this. For Djokovic, I do not. He won too many "advanced" points with long rallies and taxing physicality on Sunday to say that beating Nadal in these impossible "conditions" is beyond Djokovic's reach. The issue was consistency and rising to the occasion.

This will irk Kieran, but I will say it again: Djokovic needed about 20 to 30 minute of his best ball in the second set to take the match. He had Nadal on the ropes. If he won that second set, the match was history, because there was no way Nadal was winning 3 sets in a row against Djokovic.

Darth and I are apparently among the few who realize that Djokovic was very close to winning on Sunday but he blew his chance. Of course, Nadal had something to do with it and hit some great forehands. But more than anything else, Djokovic was a shell of himself for long stretches and we all know it. The conditions argument applies to most people, but not Djokovic.

 

[calitennis127]

Just watched the second set re-run on Tennis Channel. Djokovic's game at 5-6 was a collapse. Nadal did not do anything special until it was 15-40.

At 15-0, Djokovic hit a double fault. At 15-15, he hit a lazy forehand that clipped the tape and gave Nadal an edge in the rally. At 15-30, Djokovic missed a routine forehand.

This is the point Kieran is not facing. Djokovic needed 20 minutes of his best ball at some point in the second set, and he would have clearly won set 2. He had Nadal on the ropes and no one knew it more than Nadal. There was a reason Nadal had such urgency.

My problem is with your terminology. There is no way Rafa was "on the ropes." He was behind in the score, and that's all. So long as he was serving first and staying ahead, he was always going to have a chance.

And by the way, look back in this thread, you said Rafa played his "peak in sets 2 and 3." How could he play his peak on clay and be on the ropes against anybody?

He was down one set, and that's the full extent of it...

I have an issue with your terminology Mr. Kieran. Apparently you don't have a different definition for the terms "Djokovic" and "Isner". They are not synonymous. Nadal was not coming back from 2 sets to 0 down against Djokovic. No way, no how.

As for Nadal playing at his peak, I hate to break it to you, but as good as Nadal is on clay, he is not that much better than Djokovic, if you're just looking at the skills and talent level and suitability for the surface. It is entirely possible for Nadal to be playing at his peak on clay but to still be in trouble against Djokovic.

Djokovic is a phenomenal tennis talent, and you need to give him more credit than you are in this regard.

 

[Kieran]

I hate to break it to you, Mr Cali: Rafa wasn't two sets down against Novak.

Nor was he close to going two sets down.

He was one set down, which in a best of five, isn't what anyone would say was "on the ropes," unless you're a player like Monfils or Daveed, who give up at that stage...

 

[calitennis127]

Kieran, now you are just being downright funny. Nadal won the second set 7-5. That was either man's set. Nadal did not win it 6-1 or 6-0 or even 6-3.

And you may not think Nadal was in danger of losing that set, but Nadal clearly thought so. After watching Nadal so much over the years, you should have a better sense of when he is in "sense of urgency" mode, when he starts walking faster between points, going after the forehand more, and being very quick in his defensive reactions. That is his desperation mode, and he was clearly in that mode in set 2. He knew better than you apparently that he was not going to come back from 2 sets down against Djokovic.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, now you are just being downright funny. Nadal won the second set 7-5. That was either man's set. Nadal did not win it 6-1 or 6-0 or even 6-3.

And you may not think Nadal was in danger of losing that set, but Nadal clearly thought so. After watching Nadal so much over the years, you should have a better sense of when he is in sense of urgency" mode, when he starts walking faster between points, going after the forehand more, and being very quick in his defensive reactions. That is his desperation mode, and he was clearly in that mode in set 2. He knew better than you apparently that he was not going to come back from 2 sets down against Djokovic.

Exactly, brother: he was a set behind and he put the hammer down and won the set, having never once been behind in it.

So...when was he "on the ropes?"

He was behind, that's all. Not on the ropes...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal was not coming back from two sets to love against Novak. Fortunately, he didn't need to, because he took care of business in the second.