Did Djokovic really play that poorly?

[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.

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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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...

He put the hammer down?! Nah, more like Novak played like a player ranked in the 500s and blew it.

He blew what?

Sheesh! The way people are talking about this match, you'd swear Nole was playing a lush and threw away a two sets lead. He didn't blow it at all, he fought back as well as he could in the fourth when it seemed like Rafa might close him off. He was also visibly not well.

Again I ask: are people holding Novak to a higher standard than they hold Rafa, because that's what it sounds like.

And why am I defending Novak, where are his own fans to do this?

That's the thing Kieran, everytime Federer, Djokovic, and Murray lose to Nadal, Darth and Front believe they played poorly against Nadal instead of Nadal playing well enough to win.

:
Hey Rafanoy1992. Its like this every time Rafa wins against one of the "other 3", they don't give Rafa any Credit.. It isn't just on these boards. The Fed fans at my county club or public courts say things like what Murray or better yet Djokovic did was embarrassing, that is just plain ridiculous. One Fed fan said to me this weekend.. "All Rafa does is play the same way every time, all he has is one game, an A game"..:lolz::laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

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.

A four set match might be close in a set, as you describe, but it's not close to being won. You string out more narrative than there really exists. Yes, Djokovic was very close to winning the 3rd set at the USO, but you refuse to look at how Nadal won it, which was with a lot of guile of his own, and taking his opponent out of the match. He won that 3rd set at the USO, as won the 2nd on Sunday, by holding his nerve better in the big moments, and overall, being the better player in the end.

 

[Moxie]

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.

There is nothing you say that empirically proves that those matches would have gone differently but for one set. I know you'd love to believe it so. The other thing you seem to ignore is how those matches actually DID play out. You absolutely never address that…except to say it "shouldn't" have been so. The negating of reality does really weaken your argument.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

pointless, common sense would tell you that whoever has a two set lead would probably have won the match, barring some serious unexpected issues..... i.e. gigantic mental breakdown, mid-match injury etc, which can happen of course but we are talking a reasonable outcome.

having said that, Novak didn't win the second set so it is insignificant whatever anyone thinks "should've happened".

 

[Kieran]

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.

And let me be equally clear:

Nobody was 2 sets to 0 down, so your point is redundant.

You've been following losers for so long, you think it's game over after one set... :nono

 

[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.

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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

pointless, common sense would tell you that whoever has a two set lead would probably have won the match, barring some serious unexpected issues..... i.e. gigantic mental breakdown, mid-match injury etc, which can happen of course but we are talking a reasonable outcome.

having said that, Novak didn't win the second set so it is insignificant whatever anyone thinks "should've happened".

I'm unwilling to concede that even a 2 sets lead would decide a best of 5 set match, (since the above that you state are all possible,) but I'm pleased and amused at you playing referee, ricardo.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

And let me be equally clear:

Nobody was 2 sets to 0 down, so your point is redundant.

You've been following losers for so long, you think it's game over after one set... :nono

he's been following you.......

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

pointless, common sense would tell you that whoever has a two set lead would probably have won the match, barring some serious unexpected issues..... i.e. gigantic mental breakdown, mid-match injury etc, which can happen of course but we are talking a reasonable outcome.

having said that, Novak didn't win the second set so it is insignificant whatever anyone thinks "should've happened".

I'm unwilling to concede that even a 2 sets lead would decide a best of 5 set match, (since the above that you state are all possible,) but I'm pleased and amused at you playing referee, ricardo.

Cali as we know tends to play the role of a revisionist, but i am amused that you played along with it all this time

 

[Kieran]

I'm unwilling to concede that even a 2 sets lead would decide a best of 5 set match

No, sister, a 2 sets to love lead never decided a best of 5 match, that's why they play on, but at that stage, yeah, one player could be said to be "on the ropes..."

 

[rahulpawar]

Many people here do not give the credit Nadal deserves for his wins. A similar argument was presented in this forum by some users that Djokovic handed the US open title to Nadal. Is it so hard for them to understand that the better player on the day is going to win and I find it peculiar that when that particular player is Nadal some people ( due to their prejudice and expectations not met ) label the win as opponent's underperformance.:nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

No it wasn't. In fact, there were rain delays in the second set right before the tie-break.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

But that wasn't a good day for either. Novak couldn't even come back from Nadal taking the second set when they were tied a set apiece. He wasn't going to come back from two sets to love down, not in these conditions that saw him exhausted so early.

And given Rafa himself being fatigued in the 4th, I highly doubt he'd have been able to come back from to sets to love down.

There's nothing wrong with suggesting the second set was crucial and changed things completely. Nadal himself admitted to that, and said he wasn't coming back from two sets to love down.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

Well, if you look up the percentage of the times Nadal/Novak came back from two sets to love down against ANYONE, I highly doubt it would be anything over 5%. The times they did that against one another amounts to 0%.

So again, there's nothing wrong with that suggestion.

However, what needs to be mentioned is it was Nadal who got the first break in the 2nd to go up 4-2 before blowing it. And it was he who got the break after that. So he was the better player throughout that set. It's not like this was some huge missed opportunity by Novak (ie blowing break points or something).

 

[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.

Good of you to concede that you can't be 100% sure. Oh…whoops…you are still 95% sure you're right, though. And you doubt most wouldn't disagree….only on the 5% chance you're wrong? I'd wonder about that.

pointless, common sense would tell you that whoever has a two set lead would probably have won the match, barring some serious unexpected issues..... i.e. gigantic mental breakdown, mid-match injury etc, which can happen of course but we are talking a reasonable outcome.

having said that, Novak didn't win the second set so it is insignificant whatever anyone thinks "should've happened".

Ricardo, maybe Kieran is right about you not being the swiftest mind out there.

The issue is simply whether Djokovic rose to the occasion to play his best ball when he had a lead and had Nadal down. He did not. That was my fundamental point in this thread; I have said that overall Djokovic did not play that poorly, but when he most needed his best tennis (in the second set), he failed to produce it even though he was capable of much more and even though he should have learned by now from all the leads he has squandered against Nadal, even in matches he has ultimately won.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm unwilling to concede that even a 2 sets lead would decide a best of 5 set match

No, sister, a 2 sets to love lead never decided a best of 5 match, that's why they play on, but at that stage, yeah, one player could be said to be "on the ropes..."

You still have not answered the question: what percentage chance would you have given Nadal of coming back from a 2 sets to 0 lead?

Give me a number. Don't backpedal and rationalize. Give me a percentage please.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Curious and off topic, but has any of the Big 4 ever came back from being down 2 sets to 0 against each other?

 

[Kieran]

I'm unwilling to concede that even a 2 sets lead would decide a best of 5 set match

No, sister, a 2 sets to love lead never decided a best of 5 match, that's why they play on, but at that stage, yeah, one player could be said to be "on the ropes..."

You still have not answered the question: what percentage chance would you have given Nadal of coming back from a 2 sets to 0 lead?

Give me a number. Don't backpedal and rationalize. Give me a percentage please.

Why should I answer this? You made it up, it has nothing to do with anything. We were discussing your far fetched claim that "Rafa was on the ropes", simply because he lost the first set. Maybe losing the first set makes you feel groggy but to players of his character, it's a setback, not a disaster.

Nobody went two sets down - it's a non-subject...

 

[Kieran]

Curious and off topic, but has any of the Big 4 ever came back from being down 2 sets to 0 against each other?

Roger came back against Rafa in the final of Miami in 2005, and won.

He came back in the final of Wimbledon in 2008 but lost that one, and Novak lost against Andy in the US Open final of 2012, after coming back from two down.

Obviously, it's doable but not for Rafa in Paris...

 

[rafanoy1992]

Curious and off topic, but has any of the Big 4 ever came back from being down 2 sets to 0 against each other?

Murat, actually yes. The most famous was the 2011 US Open semifinal between Federer and Djokovic. Remember, Federer had match points on his serve and Djokovic went for it on his forehand return. That's Federer second loss after winning the first two sets in a Major.