Did Djokovic really play that poorly?

[DarthFed]

Wears off a hell of a lot more since they changed the surface. For all the whining he and his dear uncle do about court speed, the change in grass has helped him immensely. It hasn't helped Roger at all. I doubt he'd "only" have 7 if it suited his game like the old grass does.

To be honest, the only result that MIGHT have gone differently for Roger on grass had it played like the old days was Wimbledon 2008. Doubt he was going to win Wimbledon on any surface with his crappy 2010 level, and I doubt faster grass would have helped him return Tsonga's serve when he already wasn't getting a sniff on it in 2011. And let's agree that if you lose to Stakhovsky, it's not the surface's fault

Also, Nadal and Toni tend to complain about surfaces, not surface speed.

Debatable for Tsonga. Roger might not have been broken so easily those last 3 sets and may have asserted himself in baseline rallies.

 

[Front242]

Personally I think the last couple of posts are a major disservice to the outstanding levels displayed by Stakhovsky, Rosol and Darcis. Yes, the favourite players of both the Federer and Nadal fanbases are p1$$ed their guys lost but watch the replays/highlights again and you'll see how damn well the opponents played and they fully deserved their victories. Those were once in a lifetime days for those guys. Roger and Rafa have played hundreds more amazing matches. It happens.

 

[Front242]

In the case of Darcis, he put so much effort into that match that one dive hurt his shoulder so badly he not only pulled out next match after beating Rafa, but only returned playing tennis a couple of days ago.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And let's agree that if you lose to Stakhovsky, it's not the surface's fault

Would you say the same for Darcis and Rosol?

...Yeah?

 

[tented]

And let's agree that if you lose to Stakhovsky, it's not the surface's fault

Would you say the same for Darcis and Rosol?

...Yeah?

OK. I wasn't sure if you were limiting your argument to Federer and grass, or if it would be applicable to others, such as Rafa.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And let's agree that if you lose to Stakhovsky, it's not the surface's fault

Would you say the same for Darcis and Rosol?

...Yeah?

OK. I wasn't sure if you were limiting your argument to Federer and grass, or if it would be applicable to others, such as Rafa.

It would be applicable to anyone on any surface ever. Unless the surface is sending electric shocks through your body, or every single ball ends up being a bad bounce, it is never the surface's fault. You lose because you weren't good enough to win. If you're not good enough to win on a certain surface, that's your fault.

My argument is not limited to anyone nor was it an argument that I put forth anyway. Darth initially brought up the whole "Nadal is lucky grass plays more to his liking in the second week" and talked about Roger being hurt by the slowing down of grass. Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should get over this already. Grass plays the way it plays now, and it's still grass. Time to accept it.

As far as Nadal goes, I think he should never lose to Darcis and Rosol under any circumstances. That's entirely on him. That's not to say his opponent did or didn't play well. It just means that Nadal should not lose to these sorts of players, not in majors anyway.

 

[Kieran]

The US Open flirted with green clay for two years in the seventies. There's a whole parallel universe out there to be imagined, had they persevered with it. Now, kinda like the grass at Oz and Wimbledon, green clay and red clay play a little different. I think the green clay is tighter and harder and plays more like a clay hard court. Connors beat Borg on green clay in the '76 US Open final.

But instead of having 2 HC slams (of different speeds), we could have had 2 clay slams, with variations between the two...

 

[tented]

And let's agree that if you lose to Stakhovsky, it's not the surface's fault

Would you say the same for Darcis and Rosol?

...Yeah?

OK. I wasn't sure if you were limiting your argument to Federer and grass, or if it would be applicable to others, such as Rafa.

It would be applicable to anyone on any surface ever. Unless the surface is sending electric shocks through your body, or every single ball ends up being a bad bounce, it is never the surface's fault. You lose because you weren't good enough to win. If you're not good enough to win on a certain surface, that's your fault.

My argument is not limited to anyone nor was it an argument that I put forth anyway. Darth initially brought up the whole "Nadal is lucky grass plays more to his liking in the second week" and talked about Roger being hurt by the slowing down of grass. Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should get over this already. Grass plays the way it plays now, and it's still grass. Time to accept it.

As far as Nadal goes, I think he should never lose to Darcis and Rosol under any circumstances. That's entirely on him. That's not to say his opponent did or didn't play well. It just means that Nadal should not lose to these sorts of players, not in majors anyway.

We can now add Brown to this list ...

 

[Fiero425]

The US Open flirted with green clay for two years in the seventies. There's a whole parallel universe out there to be imagined, had they persevered with it. Now, kinda like the grass at Oz and Wimbledon, green clay and red clay play a little different. I think the green clay is tighter and harder and plays more like a clay hard court. Connors beat Borg on green clay in the '76 US Open final.

But instead of having 2 HC slams (of different speeds), we could have had 2 clay slams, with variations between the two...

Flirted with green clay? Honey, they turned the USO into a second rate major when they laid that rotten surface down for 3 years; '75-77! I have no idea what was on their minds? All it did was create a lot of upsets of Americans; except Evert of course! She was rarely in danger of losing except in one final against Goolagong where she capitalized on net cords dropping over to take the first set in '75! Connors survived Borg in '76 final, but he was outplayed and outsmarted by a tired Manuel Orantes in '75! Orantes had played late into the night to overtake and beat Vilas in 5 sets the previous night and no one gave him a chance! He won it easily in straights over Connors; sorta like Edberg in '91 after surviving a marathon against Chang in his semi! Memories! :clap :angel:

 

[Kieran]

I didn't realise they had it in 1975 too. I think it's a pity they didn't persevere! Borg would surely have won the US Open - and Rafa would have 8 by now! :clap :clap

 

[Fiero425]

I didn't realise they had it in 1975 too. I think it's a pity they didn't persevere! Borg would surely have won the US Open - and Rafa would have 8 by now! :clap :clap

Borg wasn't destined to win the USO ever it seemed! He was terribly unlucky with injuries (shoulder in '77 and thumb in '78) and difficulties playing night matches against serves that were "bombed" at him by someone like Roscoe Tanner in '79! His best chance was in '76 against Connors! He had a set point to go up 2 sets to 1 in that extended TB, but Connors nipped the line on a screaming backhead to take it 11-9! Borg never recovered and went down meekly in 4! His only satisfaction was that he kept Connors from winning more Wimbledons, personally taking him out year in and year out in semi's and finals in the '70's!

 

[Kieran]

I didn't realise they had it in 1975 too. I think it's a pity they didn't persevere! Borg would surely have won the US Open - and Rafa would have 8 by now! :clap :clap

Borg wasn't destined to win the USO ever it seemed! He was terribly unlucky with injuries (shoulder in '77 and thumb in '78) and difficulties playing night matches against serves that were "bombed" at him by someone like Roscoe Tanner in '79! His best chance was in '76 against Connors! He had a set point to go up 2 sets to 1 in that extended TB, but Connors nipped the line on a screaming backhead to take it 11-9! Borg never recovered and went down meekly in 4! His only satisfaction was that he kept Connors from winning more Wimbledons, personally taking him out year in and year out in semi's and finals in the '70's!

I remember that part, alright, though he paid for thrashing Connors in the 1978 Wimbledon final with a similar defeat in the US Open. Then Connors paid for that one, by never beating Bjorn ever again.

I also remember that Bjorn had a torn back muscle at the US Open too. Chap had almost as many excuses as Rafa! :snigger

 

[calitennis127]

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

No, but Nadal would against Djokovic in the Roland Garros final according to Kieran and Moxie!

You gotta believe it! Coming back against Djokovic is no different than coming back against Isner.

 

[calitennis127]

Why should I answer this?

Because it is entirely relevant to how we should evaluate Djokovic's performance. As a Nadal fan, you should appreciate that I am not completely jumping on the Darth-Front-Denisovich train of saying that Djokovic was downright "terrible". My view is that he actually did quite a number of good things, but the main problem was that he didn't raise his level at a time when doing so would have clinched a title for him. That time was the second set.

You made it up, it has nothing to do with anything.

Except the mindset of both players and the course of momentum in the final. Indeed, 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.

Being that he was playing someone who has defeated him inall 3 clay Masters Series finals and that the nature of the Djokovic-Nadal series is highly physical, that second set was utterly crucial. These aren't quick, easy sets we're talking about. This was a 4-set match and it took almost four hours, and it was only that short because the third set went by fairly quickly.

Maybe losing the first set makes you feel groggy but to players of his character, it's a setback, not a disaster.

Nalbandian, my favorite player, routinely came back from 2 sets to 0 down. I know all about it.

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

No, Nadal was close to going 2 sets to 0 down, and that would have been fatal. And he knew it, which is why he himself said so after the match.

And that reality is the most significant factor to consider in evaluating Djokovic's performance; it's not that he was just downright awful as Front suggested. It's that he didn't rise to the occasion and get the job done in set 2.

 

[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.

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

Nalbandian came back from 2 sets to 0 down many times, including in the 2005 Masters Cup final.

I know when it is feasible to come back from such a deficit and when it is not. In the Djokovic-Nadal series, in a clay-court match, it would not be possible for either to come back from 2 sets to 0 down.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Interesting.

Funny how Nadal explicitly disagreed with Kieran and Moxie.

I guess Kieran and Moxie need to send Nadal the memo that he would have still won if he fell behind 2 sets to 0. He must not have gotten it.

 

[Kieran]

Cali, nobody went two sets down, so if anyone sent me a memo about it, I binned it...

And Rafa didn't contradict me: saying that the second set was crucial is a lot different from saying Rafa was "on the ropes."

He wasn't...

 

[Ricardo]

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

No, but Nadal would against Djokovic in the Roland Garros final according to Kieran and Moxie!

You gotta believe it! Coming back against Djokovic is no different than coming back against Isner.

actually yes, Djoker did it against Federer at USO2011; in fact he was two sets down and later 2 match points down.

 

[Fiero425]

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

No, but Nadal would against Djokovic in the Roland Garros final according to Kieran and Moxie!

You gotta believe it! Coming back against Djokovic is no different than coming back against Isner.

actually yes, Djoker did it against Federer at USO2011; in fact he was two sets down and later 2 match points down.

How could people forget? The beginning of the end for Roger with Wimbledon '12 a saving grace!

 

[Kieran]

How could people forget? The beginning of the end for Roger with Wimbledon '12 a saving grace!

Well, he would have faced Nadal in the final, so if this match was the beginning of the end, let's just say it came a day early...