No reason to be overly optimistic about Djokovic at Roland Garros.....

[tented]

^ That's what I thought. I know you know tennis history better than to have suggested Pete made a RG final.

 

[Federberg]

Rafa could barely limp his way to the finish line in the fourth set, and got a lot of help from Djokovic to pull off the win -- including a DF on championship point.


Did I write he was injured? No, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Be careful how you express yourself about Rafa then.. :lolz:

 

[Fiero425]

^ That's what I thought. I know you know tennis history better than to have suggested Pete made a RG final.

So many "greats" never played a final; Connors at the top of the list with one semi! Losing to Vitas is still invoked because of his comment later about "never losing to someone 19 times in a row!" :lolz: Gerulaitis went down in flames against Borg in the final of course! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[britbox]

^ I concur. Thinking Pete reached a Roland Garros Final is like thinking China won the World Cup. (That's solely for you Kieran )

 

[tented]

Rafa could barely limp his way to the finish line in the fourth set, and got a lot of help from Djokovic to pull off the win -- including a DF on championship point.


Did I write he was injured? No, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Be careful how you express yourself about Rafa then.. :lolz:

You're the only one who misread it, so I think I'm doing OK. Thanks for the advice anyway, though!

 

[Federberg]

Rafa could barely limp his way to the finish line in the fourth set, and got a lot of help from Djokovic to pull off the win -- including a DF on championship point.


Did I write he was injured? No, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Be careful how you express yourself about Rafa then.. :lolz:

You're the only one who misread it, so I think I'm doing OK. Thanks for the advice anyway, though!

Just taking you as literally as you seem to me taking me! :snicker

 

[Fiero425]

Rafa could barely limp his way to the finish line in the fourth set, and got a lot of help from Djokovic to pull off the win -- including a DF on championship point.


Did I write he was injured? No, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Be careful how you express yourself about Rafa then.. :lolz:

"Respect My Authority?" :ras: Where have I heard or seen that before?> :lolz:

 

[Riotbeard]

Fans of the big 3 - Fed, Djoker and Nadal have such high expectations based on previous success then a superb year by any standard other than their own gets downgraded to a "so so" year.

That's a great point. Their streaks of absolute brilliance make what would be great years to the rest of the field seem dim in comparison.

Nadal is past his best... but he's definitely a live candidate for Roland Garros.

You have more faith in him than I do, my friend.

I'm not predicting he'll win it, but he obviously knows how too! I'd still have him as second favourite right now and what happens before then will be interesting for sure.

If Rafa wins one of these masters, he is the favorite. Similar results as barcelona and monte carlo though, and his confidence will probably even more rocked than it is now.

 

[Kieran]

^ I concur. Thinking Pete reached a Roland Garros Final is like thinking China won the World Cup. (That's solely for you Kieran )

He would have if they moved it to China...indoors...and he got to face Dre in every round... :snicker

 

[herios]

That's a great point. Their streaks of absolute brilliance make what would be great years to the rest of the field seem dim in comparison.


You have more faith in him than I do, my friend.

I'm not predicting he'll win it, but he obviously knows how too! I'd still have him as second favourite right now and what happens before then will be interesting for sure.

If Rafa wins one of these masters, he is the favorite.

Only if he manages to defeat Nole as well. Otherwise, I will pick Nole.

 

[Riotbeard]

I'm not predicting he'll win it, but he obviously knows how too! I'd still have him as second favourite right now and what happens before then will be interesting for sure.

If Rafa wins one of these masters, he is the favorite.

Only if he manages to defeat Nole as well. Otherwise, I will pick Nole.

Me too! ( I always pick nole) But if he gets a big tourny win, against nole or not, the nine time champ should be considered the favorite.

 

[mrzz]

Otherwise to the argument, you and Deni insist that Novak hasn't played his best against Rafa at the FO. Examples are cited in other best of 3 tournaments. But isn't that why they play them best of 5 at Slams? And you insist that the argument is hypothetical, but I have posited why Rafa wins on clay...because he's better. Djokovic's all-court game wins at best of 3, but not best of 5, because it's not a clay game. Rafa's game is more specifically suited to clay, and therefore carries the day. I'm not just trying to pooh-pooh you with reality, I'm trying to make the hypothetical argument. You said we don't have to agree, and I'm giving you a reason why I don't, even in the theoretical.

I really see your point here, Moxie, and it makes sense in itself. However, if that was really the case, I think we would see more cases of Nadal turning around some 0x2 and 1x2 matches, shouldn't we. I guess that most times he even rushed to 2x0 leads when he surrendered a set. I really do not think that the five sets are the issue here, at least not the central one.

 

[Moxie]

Think that you're all discussing apples and oranges, since it all started with a comment from Denisovich saying that peak Djokovic would beat peak Nadal at RG. As we are talking about peak, the number of titles, as oddly as it may seem, does not matter, at least not much.

What we already now is that non-peak Nadal versus non-peak Djokovic at Roland Garros is completely unbalanced in Nadal's favour. But we may never now what would have happened in a peak vs peak situation, as the closest thing to this would be the 2011 final (even if Nadal fans can arguably say that he was not at his best). A 2015 final, or match, would feature an obvious non peak Nadal, so this discussion may go on forever.

I completely understand the stronghold that Kieran and Moxie will make to stay with the facts, but this discussion is hypothetical by definition, so the non RG matches won by Djokovic are clearly part of the argument.

In this hypothetical match, without taking into account the psychological aspects (and I don't know if I should, as we are talking about "peak" performances, and maybe these two fellows at their peaks simply have no doubts on their minds), I must admit I give a small edge to Djokovic.

Of course average Djokovic against average Nadal, or even bottom Djokovic vs bottom Nadal, simply admits no discussion (at RG), at least untill now.

Just to clarify, as I believe I am misunderstood here: I am not saying peak Djokovic would beat peak Nadal. What I am saying is that Novak at his absolute best could beat Nadal on clay at RG even with Nadal in his prime.

Not saying his chances would have been great either but a whole lot better than anyone else. There is no denying Nadal is the best we have ever seen on clay. I'd say around 30%, maybe 40% if cloudy and cold weather. Their matches are very competitive and get decided by only a few points (usually both of them win near 50% of the points).

The whole point was that Novak underachieved and I think Front summarized it quite well a couple of posts ago. Given the h2h on clay outside RG, Novak should have been able to take at least one win from Nadal there. Yes, I know 'would have' 'should have'. Just saying Novak underachieved.

Let's see if this year will be different.

Otherwise to the argument, you and Deni insist that Novak hasn't played his best against Rafa at the FO. Examples are cited in other best of 3 tournaments. But isn't that why they play them best of 5 at Slams? And you insist that the argument is hypothetical, but I have posited why Rafa wins on clay...because he's better. Djokovic's all-court game wins at best of 3, but not best of 5, because it's not a clay game. Rafa's game is more specifically suited to clay, and therefore carries the day. I'm not just trying to pooh-pooh you with reality, I'm trying to make the hypothetical argument. You said we don't have to agree, and I'm giving you a reason why I don't, even in the theoretical.

I really see your point here, Moxie, and it makes sense in itself. However, if that was really the case, I think we would see more cases of Nadal turning around some 0x2 and 1x2 matches, shouldn't we. I guess that most times he even rushed to 2x0 leads when he surrendered a set. I really do not think that the five sets are the issue here, at least not the central one.

Can you give some examples, as I'm not really clear what you're trying to say here.

 

[mrzz]

^In a nutshell, Nadal would have won those RG matches even if they were three setters, as he was always the one who scored 2 sets first.

 

[Moxie]

^In a nutshell, Nadal would have won those RG matches even if they were three setters, as he was always the one who scored 2 sets first.

Ah, I see what you were going for. But they weren't best of 3, which is a different pacing and mindset.

 

[Carol]

I just can say this although the Federer's and Novak's fans would wish the opposite, Nadal playing his best on clay has showed very clear that he can beat Novak playing his best too same like he has beaten Federer, no doubts about it, and that's why he has won 9 RG titles with all the honors

 

[Haelfix]

I just can say this although the Federer's and Novak's fans would wish the opposite, Nadal playing his best on clay has showed very clear that he can beat Novak playing his best too same like he has beaten Federer, no doubts about it, and that's why he has won 9 RG titles with all the honors

I think It very much depends on the conditions. If the court plays super slow and bouncy like last year, ultimately Novak suffers the same problem everyone else under 6'6 faces. If on the other hand it plays like in 2012 before the break, you can see that things become much more 50/50.

But yea, Nadal at his best is obviously the king of clay, just like Fed in his prime was the king of grass or arguably Novak at the AO.

Hard to see anyone beating them there.

 

[Fiero425]

I just can say this although the Federer's and Novak's fans would wish the opposite, Nadal playing his best on clay has showed very clear that he can beat Novak playing his best too same like he has beaten Federer, no doubts about it, and that's why he has won 9 RG titles with all the honors

I think It very much depends on the conditions. If the court plays super slow and bouncy like last year, ultimately Novak suffers the same problem everyone else under 6'6 faces. If on the other hand it plays like in 2012 before the break, you can see that things become much more 50/50.

But yea, Nadal at his best is obviously the king of clay, just like Fed in his prime was the king of grass or arguably Novak at the AO.

Hard to see anyone beating them there.

True enough, the "Big 3" players "own" these individual majors like no other; maybe you can say there's a contest between Sampras and Federer at Wimbledon because of Pete's serve! I spell it out here:

- http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=737 - :angel:

 

[Carol]

I just can say this although the Federer's and Novak's fans would wish the opposite, Nadal playing his best on clay has showed very clear that he can beat Novak playing his best too same like he has beaten Federer, no doubts about it, and that's why he has won 9 RG titles with all the honors

I think It very much depends on the conditions. If the court plays super slow and bouncy like last year, ultimately Novak suffers the same problem everyone else under 6'6 faces. If on the other hand it plays like in 2012 before the break, you can see that things become much more 50/50.

But yea, Nadal at his best is obviously the king of clay, just like Fed in his prime was the king of grass or arguably Novak at the AO.

Hard to see anyone beating them there.

2014/15 Nadal has been more vulnerable than ever on clay and also on HC but I don't think is due to the slow court and bouncy but his lack of confidence which in any sport is so important as the game
He'll be back

 

[tented]

I just can say this although the Federer's and Novak's fans would wish the opposite, Nadal playing his best on clay has showed very clear that he can beat Novak playing his best too same like he has beaten Federer, no doubts about it, and that's why he has won 9 RG titles with all the honors

I think It very much depends on the conditions. If the court plays super slow and bouncy like last year, ultimately Novak suffers the same problem everyone else under 6'6 faces. If on the other hand it plays like in 2012 before the break, you can see that things become much more 50/50.

But yea, Nadal at his best is obviously the king of clay, just like Fed in his prime was the king of grass or arguably Novak at the AO.

Hard to see anyone beating them there.

2014/15 Nadal has been more vulnerable than ever on clay and also on HC but I don't think is due to the slow court and bouncy but his lack of confidence which in any sport is so important as the game
He'll be back

Yes, confidence is always important for Rafa, but Haelfix is correct with everything else. The 2012 RG final, Parts I & II, demonstrated this: when it was rainy, wet, and slow, Novak was clearly at an advantage; when they returned the next day, and it was dry and hot, Rafa was in King of Clay mode.