Did Djokovic really play that poorly?

[calitennis127]

^ That's fine and well but neither played their best or even close for that matter so I think it's safe to say they both would've had more winners had their respective levels been higher.

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

 

[Front242]

^ That's fine and well but neither played their best or even close for that matter so I think it's safe to say they both would've had more winners had their respective levels been higher.

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

Djokovic gave away 2 easy breaks in set 2 with nothing much needed by Nadal at all. Set 3 he was even worse.

 

[calitennis127]

^ That's fine and well but neither played their best or even close for that matter so I think it's safe to say they both would've had more winners had their respective levels been higher.

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

Djokovic gave away 2 easy breaks in set 2 with nothing much needed by Nadal at all. Set 3 he was even worse.

Nadal hit a good number of winners and he was bringing it as much as he can offensively. It is entirely possible for one player to play well while the other does not.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ No opponent needed to be amazing to beat Nadal today, just more focused, less errors and not botching leads or losing the match on a double fault. The fact that Djokovic was far from amazing made it all the more easy for Nadal to win, which he deserved to as he committed less slop but it wasn't that clean a match from either guy. The stats were close.

I disagree. If someone played average vs. rafa's average (like today, according to you), most likely they'd lose.

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either. It wasn't even a long match and yet Nadal was extremely gassed in set 4. He was there for the taking by someone not having as many lulls in concentration as Novak. A healthy Nishikori or a Gulbis totally focused would've put up a damn good fight. Obviously purely hypothetical but those 2 could've challenged Nadal today without doubt imo.

This post is wrong for so many reasons. Go check how tall Nishikori is. Now please tell me how was he going to do well in these conditions with the ball bouncing over his damn head. Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't Madrid.

Also, the two fittest guys on tour with both tired in the 4th. This should tell you all you need to know about how physical the match was and how difficult the condition were. You think someone else could have outlasted Nadal physically in that match? You're out of your mind, sorry.

Nishikori challenging Nadal... I still can't get over that. This ain't Madrid. Nadal is a horrible match-up for him.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ No opponent needed to be amazing to beat Nadal today, just more focused, less errors and not botching leads or losing the match on a double fault. The fact that Djokovic was far from amazing made it all the more easy for Nadal to win, which he deserved to as he committed less slop but it wasn't that clean a match from either guy. The stats were close.

I disagree. If someone played average vs. rafa's average (like today, according to you), most likely they'd lose.

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

 

[Front242]

^ That's fine and well but neither played their best or even close for that matter so I think it's safe to say they both would've had more winners had their respective levels been higher.

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

Djokovic gave away 2 easy breaks in set 2 with nothing much needed by Nadal at all. Set 3 he was even worse.

Nadal hit a good number of winners and he was bringing it as much as he can offensively. It is entirely possible for one player to play well while the other does not.

I realize this and just wish some more fans would accept this although to be fair I don't think either played really what I'd consider well. More a case of the winner was less poor and thus won 'cos that's gotta rank pretty high up there as one of Nadal's least convincing performances at RG and yet he still won. Kudos to him for that but he certainly got some help from a guy he knows didn't challenge him probably anywhere near what he was expecting, especially after set 1 ended. The crowd too were completely subdued at the start of set 2. But it didn't last long for Novak sadly.

 

[Front242]

^ No opponent needed to be amazing to beat Nadal today, just more focused, less errors and not botching leads or losing the match on a double fault. The fact that Djokovic was far from amazing made it all the more easy for Nadal to win, which he deserved to as he committed less slop but it wasn't that clean a match from either guy. The stats were close.

I disagree. If someone played average vs. rafa's average (like today, according to you), most likely they'd lose.

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

And the way he played the 2014 final that same guy would've mopped the floor with him with his huge serve and powerful groundstrokes. I'm only judging beating him as he played the final this year, not in general.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ No opponent needed to be amazing to beat Nadal today, just more focused, less errors and not botching leads or losing the match on a double fault. The fact that Djokovic was far from amazing made it all the more easy for Nadal to win, which he deserved to as he committed less slop but it wasn't that clean a match from either guy. The stats were close.

I disagree. If someone played average vs. rafa's average (like today, according to you), most likely they'd lose.

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

And the way he played the 2014 final that same guy would've mopped the floor with him with his huge serve and powerful groundstrokes. I'm only judging beating him as he played the final this year, not in general.

Yeah, thus proving my point, that it would have required for someone playing the same way that guy who beat him did: Therefore, play amazing.

 

[Front242]

Today? No. Previous years yes apart from 2011.

 

[Riotbeard]

I disagree. If someone played average vs. rafa's average (like today, according to you), most likely they'd lose.

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

And the way he played the 2014 final that same guy would've mopped the floor with him with his huge serve and powerful groundstrokes. I'm only judging beating him as he played the final this year, not in general.

Yeah, thus proving my point, that it would have required for someone playing the same way that guy who beat him did: Therefore, play amazing.

If both players had played at a high level and novak lost, I could feel good about this. I wish that had happened. It did not. Rafa was there every point mentally, but his for was mostly just passable by his standards. I believe Novak form last year (which was not amazing) would have won this match. He did not bring that form.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Today? No. Previous years yes apart from 2011.

Please tell me who could have possibly beaten Nadal today... Name me players. First of all, how many players have the game to trouble him on clay, let alone beat him? Secondly, how many players have the game to play a certain way for potentially 5 sets (or hell, even 3) in these conditions? Thirdly, how many players have the physicality to keep up that level of play in these conditions? Then, how many players have the mentality to put it all together?

And finally, how many players have a combination of all of the freaking above to do it?

You are kidding yourself.

 

[calitennis127]

^ That's fine and well but neither played their best or even close for that matter so I think it's safe to say they both would've had more winners had their respective levels been higher.

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

Djokovic gave away 2 easy breaks in set 2 with nothing much needed by Nadal at all. Set 3 he was even worse.

Nadal hit a good number of winners and he was bringing it as much as he can offensively. It is entirely possible for one player to play well while the other does not.

I realize this and just wish some more fans would accept this although to be fair I don't think either played really what I'd consider well. More a case of the winner was less poor and thus won 'cos that's gotta rank pretty high up there as one of Nadal's least convincing performances at RG and yet he still won. Kudos to him for that but he certainly got some help from a guy he knows didn't challenge him probably anywhere near what he was expecting, especially after set 1 ended. The crowd too were completely subdued at the start of set 2. But it didn't last long for Novak sadly.

I disagree quite strongly on these points, Front. Nadal played at his peak level in sets 2 and 3. He raised his game. Djokovic did not respond the way he needed to. He did not meet fire with fire, but actually poured more gasoline on Nadal's fire with costly errors and missed serves.

Again, this comes back to the theme of Djokovic not solidifying leads against Nadal. On slow hardcourts like WTF and Miami, he can get away with it because the conditions favor his game so much. At Roland Garros, he is not afforded that luxury.

If he had played crisply and energetically for about 20-25 minutes to start the second set, he very well could have won in straights. Instead, he was too sluggish and too timid.

 

[Front242]

Think of it this way...did Novak play amazing in set 1? Not really, yet he still won. Did he play amazing in set 2? Not unless you call being broken twice good and I sure as hell don't. But yet he was one hold away from a 2nd set TB play nothing special against an opponent clearly not at his best either. Novak's performance in set 3 was abysmal as the scoreline shows and he perked a bit in set 4 only to lose focus yet again when it mattered most. I don't think the version of Nadal playing this year's final took a monumental effort to beat personally.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

And the way he played the 2014 final that same guy would've mopped the floor with him with his huge serve and powerful groundstrokes. I'm only judging beating him as he played the final this year, not in general.

Yeah, thus proving my point, that it would have required for someone playing the same way that guy who beat him did: Therefore, play amazing.

If both players had played at a high level and novak lost, I could feel good about this. I wish that had happened. It did not. Rafa was there every point mentally, but his for was mostly just passable by his standards. I believe Novak form last year (which was not amazing) would have won this match. He did not bring that form.

Uh, when did I disagree that Novak can beat him? My question is, who else? Novak playing well or not is irrelevant, because my question is not about him (I have no doubt he can do it), my question is about others. Who could have realistically done it. Please give me names. I know Front is still hanging on to a retired guy who did it five years ago before getting his ass handed to him the next year, but, realistically, who?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Think of it this way...did Novak play amazing in set 1? Not really, yet he still won. Did he play amazing in set 2? Not unless you call being broken twice good and I sure as hell don't. But yet he was one hold away from a 2nd set TB play nothing special against an opponent clearly not at his best either. Novak's performance in set 3 was abysmal as the scoreline shows and he perked a bit in set 4 only to lose focus yet again when it mattered most. I don't think the version of Nadal playing this year's final took a monumental effort to beat personally.

And yet you still can't name me a player who can do it, in these conditions. Please refer to my post above about all the attributes said player needs to posses to beat even this version of Nadal.

Other than Gulbis and Nishikori...of course

 

[Front242]

Nadal played as well as he possibly could in sets 2 and 3. I don't know what you were watching in that regard.

Djokovic gave away 2 easy breaks in set 2 with nothing much needed by Nadal at all. Set 3 he was even worse.

Nadal hit a good number of winners and he was bringing it as much as he can offensively. It is entirely possible for one player to play well while the other does not.

I realize this and just wish some more fans would accept this although to be fair I don't think either played really what I'd consider well. More a case of the winner was less poor and thus won 'cos that's gotta rank pretty high up there as one of Nadal's least convincing performances at RG and yet he still won. Kudos to him for that but he certainly got some help from a guy he knows didn't challenge him probably anywhere near what he was expecting, especially after set 1 ended. The crowd too were completely subdued at the start of set 2. But it didn't last long for Novak sadly.

I disagree quite strongly on these points, Front. Nadal played at his peak level in sets 2 and 3. He raised his game. Djokovic did not respond the way he needed to. He did not meet fire with fire, but actually poured more gasoline on Nadal's fire with costly errors and missed serves.

Again, this comes back to the theme of Djokovic not solidifying leads against Nadal. On slow hardcourts like WTF and Miami, he can get away with it because the conditions favor his game so much. At Roland Garros, he is not afforded that luxury.

If he had played crisply and energetically for about 20-25 minutes to start the second set, he very well could have won in straights. Instead, he was too sluggish and too timid.

Those 2nd and 3rd sets might be peak Nadal at 28 years of age but they sure as hell aren't the best he can play or even remotely close. But yeah Novak was far too timid as I mentioned earlier. Too many pusher rallies same as Murray. He didn't hit the balls anywhere near hard enough and with no conviction. There was one hideous point where both Nadal and Djokovic hit the ball about 10 times right back to each other down the centre of the court like the warm up!

 

[calitennis127]

I never said playing average was enough but you wouldn't have needed to be utterly amazing to beat Nadal either.

Uh...he's lost once in 66 matches at Roland Garros... to a guy playing beyond amazing. That answers your above statement.

And the way he played the 2014 final that same guy would've mopped the floor with him with his huge serve and powerful groundstrokes. I'm only judging beating him as he played the final this year, not in general.

Yeah, thus proving my point, that it would have required for someone playing the same way that guy who beat him did: Therefore, play amazing.

If both players had played at a high level and novak lost, I could feel good about this. I wish that had happened. It did not. Rafa was there every point mentally, but his for was mostly just passable by his standards. I believe Novak form last year (which was not amazing) would have won this match. He did not bring that form.

Nadal was not all that special in the first set, to be fair. He gave Djokovic the decisive break more than Novak took it. Those new balls flying on him didn't help in that game either.

Look - Djokovic has no gameplan for Nadal's self-defense onslaught. This was evident in set 3 of the US Open last year. My question to you as a Novak fan is this: when Nadal is on his last legs, making a last stand in a GS match, and he brings his very best with high-first percentage, constantly finding the court, bludgeoning forehands when opportunities present themselves, and turning into a defensive backboard - when Nadal is in that mode as he was in set 3 of the US Open or set 2 in the RG final - what is Djokovic's gameplan for fending off that charge?

It appears to be to hold on for dear life, look at his camp, and hope that something good happens to him.

 

[Front242]

Think of it this way...did Novak play amazing in set 1? Not really, yet he still won. Did he play amazing in set 2? Not unless you call being broken twice good and I sure as hell don't. But yet he was one hold away from a 2nd set TB play nothing special against an opponent clearly not at his best either. Novak's performance in set 3 was abysmal as the scoreline shows and he perked a bit in set 4 only to lose focus yet again when it mattered most. I don't think the version of Nadal playing this year's final took a monumental effort to beat personally.

And yet you still can't name me a player who can do it, in these conditions. Please refer to my post above about all the attributes said player needs to posses to beat even this version of Nadal.

Other than Gulbis and Nishikori...of course

Those were the two I had in mind actually as you know but again, I'm only gauging that matchup based on how Nadal played today.

 

[calitennis127]

Uh, when did I disagree that Novak can beat him? My question is, who else? Novak playing well or not is irrelevant, because my question is not about him (I have no doubt he can do it), my question is about others. Who could have realistically done it. Please give me names. I know Front is still hanging on to a retired guy who did it five years ago before getting his ass handed to him the next year, but, realistically, who?

Nalbandian without seven surgeries, a first-serve percentage below 50, and 14 double faults.

 

[Front242]

The thing about Nishikori and Gulbis is they don't fear the top players and it's refreshing to see. The lack of respect Gulbis has for them makes him a tough guy to play. Deep down he probably genuinely thinks he's better than them but needs to concentrate more. He's a cocky sob but he's entitled to be so, he's lost in most matches to Nadal by a single break in the 3rd set and this year he's a helluva lot better than before. Hence why I said today he'd have proven a tough opponent.