Did Djokovic really play that poorly?

[Front242]

^ Hayfever probably. The next excuse for getting blown out in round 1

 

[Kieran]

Now, the question is: I wonder what grass will give him?

Well, he was blown out the last two years, but I think this year he might do better. Physically, his knees seem fine, so bending should be easier to him, and he's already in Halle getting some practice in, so I have hopes, but cautiously...

 

[Front242]

Now, the question is: I wonder what grass will give him?

Well, he was blown out the last two years, but I think this year he might do better. Physically, his knees seem fine, so bending should be easier to him, and he's already in Halle getting some practice in, so I have hopes, but cautiously...

Well I haven't bet for a while but I think it's also safe to say he'll do better than last year! Roger too hopefully. Two old ballbags!

 

[Kieran]

Now, the question is: I wonder what grass will give him?

Well, he was blown out the last two years, but I think this year he might do better. Physically, his knees seem fine, so bending should be easier to him, and he's already in Halle getting some practice in, so I have hopes, but cautiously...

Well I haven't bet for a while but I think it's also safe to say he'll do better than last year! Roger too hopefully. Two old ballbags!

Yeah, the pair of them were really bad last year. Hopefully they'll be back in contention. A Fedal final at Wimbledon would make my summer...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

It's pretty bad given the momentum and 4 straight wins for Novak coming in to RG. Save for a botched routine volley, Daniel Brands last year did better against Rafa than Novak this year. It wasn't a final but so what. He was closer to a 2 zip lead than Novak was, maybe some would prefer to call it a draw but imo Brands was doing better since he actually made a 2nd set TB. Novak played a rotten stinker of a service game at 5-6 2nd set and didn't even make it to a TB.

But that was a first round match in wet conditions, similar to the ones in the match versus Soderling 2009. Also the opponent was a tall player who had a comparatively easy time in attacking Nadal's topspin shots on such a day and won a lot of free points on serve. I'm sure Novak would love to play Nadal on a day like that. You could see how much such conditions help Djokovic respectively hurt Nadal in the third set of the 2012 final which Nole won easily although being in not especially great form, almost losing to Seppi and Tsonga during that tournament and Nadal destroying everybody on red clay that year.

So it's not a fair or reasonable comparison and I can't remember a match in recent years if at all, where someone held his own against Nadal in similar weather to Sunday.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Ain't happening. And I'd rather see a decent final, maybe a rematch of 2012.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Now, the question is: I wonder what grass will give him?

Well, he was blown out the last two years, but I think this year he might do better. Physically, his knees seem fine, so bending should be easier to him, and he's already in Halle getting some practice in, so I have hopes, but cautiously...

Well I haven't bet for a while but I think it's also safe to say he'll do better than last year! Roger too hopefully. Two old ballbags!

Yeah, the pair of them were really bad last year. Hopefully they'll be back in contention. A Fedal final at Wimbledon would make my summer...

The good news is that The Big Four will have each own quarter so we don't have to worry about them facing each other until the semifinals.

 

[Front242]

It's pretty bad given the momentum and 4 straight wins for Novak coming in to RG. Save for a botched routine volley, Daniel Brands last year did better against Rafa than Novak this year. It wasn't a final but so what. He was closer to a 2 zip lead than Novak was, maybe some would prefer to call it a draw but imo Brands was doing better since he actually made a 2nd set TB. Novak played a rotten stinker of a service game at 5-6 2nd set and didn't even make it to a TB.

But that was a first round match in wet conditions, similar to the ones in the match versus Soderling 2009. Also the opponent was a tall player who had a comparatively easy time in attacking Nadal's topspin shots on such a day and won a lot of free points on serve. I'm sure Novak would love to play Nadal on a day like that. You could see how much such conditions help Djokovic respectively hurt Nadal in the third set of the 2012 final which Nole won easily although being in not especially great form, almost losing to Seppi and Tsonga during that tournament and Nadal destroying everybody on red clay that year.

So it's not a fair or reasonable comparison and I can't remember a match in recent years if at all, where someone held his own against Nadal in similar weather to Sunday.

Weather was pretty good in the 2011 RG when Roger did better than Novak. Completely blew a 5-2 first set lead though.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

It's pretty bad given the momentum and 4 straight wins for Novak coming in to RG. Save for a botched routine volley, Daniel Brands last year did better against Rafa than Novak this year. It wasn't a final but so what. He was closer to a 2 zip lead than Novak was, maybe some would prefer to call it a draw but imo Brands was doing better since he actually made a 2nd set TB. Novak played a rotten stinker of a service game at 5-6 2nd set and didn't even make it to a TB.

But that was a first round match in wet conditions, similar to the ones in the match versus Soderling 2009. Also the opponent was a tall player who had a comparatively easy time in attacking Nadal's topspin shots on such a day and won a lot of free points on serve. I'm sure Novak would love to play Nadal on a day like that. You could see how much such conditions help Djokovic respectively hurt Nadal in the third set of the 2012 final which Nole won easily although being in not especially great form, almost losing to Seppi and Tsonga during that tournament and Nadal destroying everybody on red clay that year.

So it's not a fair or reasonable comparison and I can't remember a match in recent years if at all, where someone held his own against Nadal in similar weather to Sunday.

Weather was pretty good in the 2011 RG when Roger did better than Novak. Completely blew a 5-2 first set lead though.

I can't remember what the conditions were like that day, but RG 2011 is certainly up there when thinking about Rogers best clay tournaments. Apart from the Rome match 2006 it was the only occasion where he got somewhat close to win three sets against Nadal on clay. Probably the lighter balls that year helped him to effectively hit through the court.

 

[Front242]

^ Most likely had a bit to do with it but either way, Nadal was there for the taking in 2011 and this past Sunday. Both of them missed their respective biggest chances.

 

[Front242]

And yes, despite losing in a closer match in 2013, this year Nadal was way more vulnerable and more there for the the taking imo, though clearly Novak had a huge chance last year also.

 

[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.

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...

In my opinion, Nadal was on the ropes the moment Djokovic won the first set, simply because there was no way he was coming down from 2 sets to 0 against Nadal and we all know how proficient a returner Djokovic is.

Nadal knew he had to win set 2 to win the match, which is why he went into his high-level desperation mode and played his best.

5-5 is pretty close to winning or losing a set. When Djokovic was down 5-6 and up 15-0, he was 10 minutes of his best ball from winning the set.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

I'm glad you agree that Nadal was on the ropes in the second set. I'm glad you agree that Djokovic would have been much harder to come back on than a fatigued Isner.

 

[Moxie]

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...

In my opinion, Nadal was on the ropes the moment Djokovic won the first set, simply because there was no way he was coming down from 2 sets to 0 against Nadal and we all know how proficient a returner Djokovic is.

Nadal knew he had to win set 2 to win the match, which is why he went into his high-level desperation mode and played his best.

5-5 is pretty close to winning or losing a set. When Djokovic was down 5-6 and up 15-0, he was 10 minutes of his best ball from winning the set.

I see your theory, that, had Novak won a set he didn't win, (he might have gotten it to a TB, but it's still unknown who would have won it,) that Nadal couldn't have won the next three, based on confidence and Novak's return. Still, that's a lot of extrapolation. If you change the fortunes of one set, you can't account for the fortunes of the others. Especially given how much momentum has changed hands when these two play 5 full sets. (Exactly twice, and one to each. The clay one going to Nadal.)

You've said that you think Novak was *close* to winning this one, as you often assert about last year's USO. Since both went to Nadal in 4, I'd say that's a stretch, and too much speculation.

 

[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.

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...

In my opinion, Nadal was on the ropes the moment Djokovic won the first set, simply because there was no way he was coming down from 2 sets to 0 against Nadal and we all know how proficient a returner Djokovic is.

Nadal knew he had to win set 2 to win the match, which is why he went into his high-level desperation mode and played his best.

5-5 is pretty close to winning or losing a set. When Djokovic was down 5-6 and up 15-0, he was 10 minutes of his best ball from winning the set.

I see your theory, that, had Novak won a set he didn't win, (he might have gotten it to a TB, but it's still unknown who would have won it,) that Nadal couldn't have won the next three, based on confidence and Novak's return. Still, that's a lot of extrapolation. If you change the fortunes of one set, you can't account for the fortunes of the others. Especially given how much momentum has changed hands when these two play 5 full sets. (Exactly twice, and one to each. The clay one going to Nadal.)

You've said that you think Novak was *close* to winning this one, as you often assert about last year's USO. Since both went to Nadal in 4, I'd say that's a stretch, and too much speculation.

It's all a matter of momentum and rising to the occasion in the big moments. The key moment in this final was the second set and both sides knew it. The key moment in the USO final was the 3rd set.

Nadal was not playing Robert Kendrick on grass. If he lost the second set, he wasn't winning the match. And he knew it.

 

[calitennis127]

Let me be clear: there was no way Djokovic was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final. And there was also no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final.

Given that it was on a clay court and both players are defensive juggernauts, coming back from 2-0 down would have been impossible for either.

And what is the point to me saying all this?

Yet again, Djokovic had a firm lead on Nadal in a big match and did not consolidate it. He did not rise to the occasion in the second set. He appeared to be ill-equipped, flustered, and fatigued when we all know he should not have been.

 

[Moxie]

I see your theory, that, had Novak won a set he didn't win, (he might have gotten it to a TB, but it's still unknown who would have won it,) that Nadal couldn't have won the next three, based on confidence and Novak's return. Still, that's a lot of extrapolation. If you change the fortunes of one set, you can't account for the fortunes of the others. Especially given how much momentum has changed hands when these two play 5 full sets. (Exactly twice, and one to each. The clay one going to Nadal.)

You've said that you think Novak was *close* to winning this one, as you often assert about last year's USO. Since both went to Nadal in 4, I'd say that's a stretch, and too much speculation.

It's all a matter of momentum and rising to the occasion in the big moments. The key moment in this final was the second set and both sides knew it. The key moment in the USO final was the 3rd set.

I will give you that the 3rd set was key in the USO, and Rafa got it. After that, Novak lost heart, which is why I don't see how you think that match was close. If Djokovic had gotten the 3nd, there were still 2 sets to contest. And, knowing that he was so close in the 3rd, why did he lose all hope in the 4th? For that reason, I wouldn't say that the USO final was "close" to a Djokovic win, and by the same behavior, I don't think you can say that, had Novak won the 2nd on Sunday, that he would necessarily won the match. He's capable of losing heart and focus.

As to Sunday's final, I think you put the emphasis too early on momentum…there would still have been a lot of match yet to be played. You're the one who puts out there "momentum and rising to the occasion," and there's no reason to think that Nadal, who has but for one match always risen to the occasion at RG, wouldn't have done it again, even 2 sets down. You have no ground to say he wouldn't have. Nadal is the sturdier of the two, especially on clay and at RG.

 

[Moxie]

Let me be clear: there was no way Djokovic was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final. And there was also no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final.

This is a flawed assumption. On a good day, either could have done it against the other. You're assuming that momentum and psychology would carry the day. I'd say that both were prepared to leave everything on the court in this one, if they could, and there's no telling what might have happened in a 5th, however they had gotten there. By which I mean, there's also no telling what would have happened in the 3rd and 4th. Pretending you DO know is hubristic on your part, IMO.

 

[calitennis127]

Let me be clear: there was no way Djokovic was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final. And there was also no way that Nadal was coming back from 2 sets to 0 down in this final.

This is a flawed assumption. On a good day, either could have done it against the other. You're assuming that momentum and psychology would carry the day. I'd say that both were prepared to leave everything on the court in this one, if they could, and there's no telling what might have happened in a 5th, however they had gotten there. By which I mean, there's also no telling what would have happened in the 3rd and 4th. Pretending you DO know is hubristic on your part, IMO.

No, I don't know 100%.

I am just telling you that there was about a 95% chance that neither of them would have come down from 2 sets to 0, not with the style of play these two have. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that.

 

[calitennis127]

I will give you that the 3rd set was key in the USO, and Rafa got it. After that, Novak lost heart, which is why I don't see how you think that match was close.

The lopsided 4th set of the 2013 US Open was just as meaningless as the lopsided 4th set of the 2011 US Open. The matches had been long decided before those two sets began.

That doesn't mean that last year's final wasn't close. Djokovic was up 2-0 with double break point in the third set, and then he was up 0-40 on Nadal's serve with Nadal serving at 4-4. Therefore, he was on the cusp twice of taking the set.

A match where the margin was that fine a line is a close match.

If Djokovic had gotten the 3nd, there were still 2 sets to contest.

Technically, yes. But what is technical and what is psychologically relevant are often two different things. There are decisive moments in every match that swing the emotions decisively and determine whether the psychological threshold of a player will be broken down.

With as physical and as taxing as the US Open final was through two and a half sets (remember the 54-shot rally), the 3rd set was clearly going to be decisive. Djokovic was ahead twice and he gave it away.

And, knowing that he was so close in the 3rd, why did he lose all hope in the 4th?

Because he was psychologically devastated after losing the 3rd set - and he had his reasons to be.

For that reason, I wouldn't say that the USO final was "close" to a Djokovic win, and by the same behavior, I don't think you can say that, had Novak won the 2nd on Sunday, that he would necessarily won the match. He's capable of losing heart and focus.

I'm sorry, but there is no way that Nadal was going to come back from 2 sets to 0 down on Djokovic. Against most other players, Nadal would certainly have a strong chance at a comeback. But Djokovic is not reliant on a big serve (a la Isner), nor is he just a winner-producer who could start coughing up unforced errors left and right (a la Gulbis). Frankly, he is too similar to Nadal in terms of defensive prowess and physicality for it to be realistic that Nadal would come back against him. There is a reason that they played a 5-setter last year: their levels are not too far off.

As to Sunday's final, I think you put the emphasis too early on momentum…there would still have been a lot of match yet to be played. You're the one who puts out there "momentum and rising to the occasion," and there's no reason to think that Nadal, who has but for one match always risen to the occasion at RG, wouldn't have done it again, even 2 sets down.

Uh, yes, there are a number of reasons, and in case you didn't notice, one of your fellow Nadal fans agreed that Nadal was not going to come back from 2 sets to 0 down.

As I alluded to earlier, the physicality and the defense of each of these two renders a comeback from 0-2 down at Roland Garros virtually impossible, especially with the psychological hurdle of knowing just how much work must be done. Both can play sensational defense and are going to force errors out of their opponent after long rallies.

You have no ground to say he wouldn't have.

We have watched enough of their matches to understand the dynamics of the match-up by now.