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

[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.

I get what you're saying, in terms of the perceived "peak" of each, but we'll never get that 2011 final. What we have is the matches they have played. You say that Kieran and I have "stayed with the facts," as if that's a bad thing. And I don't see how the discussion is that hypothetical, unless you're talking about some folks who are trying to say that Novak has underachieved v. Nadal on clay. Djokovic has lost to Rafa at RG like (almost) everyone else has. It's not that ignominious. It is, simply, true.

Whatever is to come will come, but what is the past is what it is, and it's a bit embarrassing for those who would try to re-write it with "what-ifs." If it could have been different, it would have been.

 

[nehmeth]

Got to re-watch the RN v. FF match. (Thank you ESPN3)

Ralf was not moving as well as he did in MC, but maybe it was just not being "up" for the player he was facing across the net. Novak went through that in the final on Sunday. Fabio executed when he needed to and Rafa did not - was the wrong day to be flat against the wrong guy.

We'll see what happens with Madrid and Rome. Rafa still has time to find his stride by the first week in Paris. We are used to him dominating this part of the season from start to finish, and it just hasn't been that way. Holding out hope he will be the guy facing Nole that 2nd Sunday on the Terre Battue.

 

[Carol]

Blah, blah, blah and at the end nobody knows who is going to win RG, not even the players. It could be maybe a player not mentioned in this thread? or maybe Federer or someone else?
Or maybe the same player who has won already 9 RG, it could be, why not? we'll see :huh: :s :idea:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Got to re-watch the RN v. FF match. (Thank you ESPN3)

Ralf was not moving as well as he did in MC, but maybe it was just not being "up" for the player he was facing across the net. Novak went through that in the final on Sunday. Fabio executed when he needed to and Rafa did not - was the wrong day to be flat against the wrong guy.

That is a lame excuse considering that the player he was facing across the net was the one who beat him less than two months ago on clay. If you can't be "up" for a player who defeated you recently whom are you going to be up for.

 

[Carol]

Got to re-watch the RN v. FF match. (Thank you ESPN3)

Ralf was not moving as well as he did in MC, but maybe it was just not being "up" for the player he was facing across the net. Novak went through that in the final on Sunday. Fabio executed when he needed to and Rafa did not - was the wrong day to be flat against the wrong guy.

That is a lame excuse considering that the player he was facing across the net was the one who beat him less than two months ago on clay. If you can't be "up" for a player who defeated you recently whom are you going to be up for.

That is telling you how bad Nadal is playing but until now he and Novak are 14-5 on clay and not just RG but also playing in others tournaments
Well, Nadal is playing bad (30 unforced errors today) but he has to resolve those up and downs, otherwise he will continue been vulnerable and giving too many opportunities to players that not even in their dreams would have beaten him :dodgy: :cover :nono

 

[Moxie]

You're all very bad. Tented just spent the effort to split this thread from the Barcelona one, and now you're discussing the Barcelona tournament here. *unnecessary housekeeping*

 

[Denis]

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.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Well, this is reasonable, given that it's true, Nole has made things very competitive in Paris, and as I said earlier, he's taking on the difficult task of trying to adjust his game to beat Rafa in his French bolthole, which Roger didn't do, preferring no doubt to wait for someone else to do the dirty work. The whole pointless, meaningless, twenty page argument is whether or not Nole "under-achieved", and this will come down to whether or not you believe he "should" beat Rafa, or whether you believe he's done well against Rafa, but Rafa is just ridiculously near invincible on the surface.

It's a more interesting post than mrzz, unfortunately, who weighed the scales of justice blindly and concluded with great solemnity that if it was a match in Paris between them both at their peaks, he "must admit I give a small edge to Djokovic." Based upon what evidence, of course, is the obvious response, and this is why it feels that Rafa - who's beaten Nole seven times over five sets on red clay, losing only 4 sets - is getting sold short.

Let's see if this year will be different.

There's also the element that, if Rafa finally ever loses to Novak at Paris, there'll be a chorus of, "we told you so! Novak is greater than Rafa on clay!" which flies in the face of the total story, and may only reflect the crude law of averages. I expect Rafa to be much better in Paris than he has been so far, and even below his best, he's been taking Paris the last few seasons, but nothing lasts forever. He could face a rampant kid like ???, and Nole could fall to a stubborn bloke like ??? and none of them get the trophy. They've no divine rights to it, either of them...

 

[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.

You're talking around yourself a little bit, (see bolded) but let's make it simple: In 2012, Djokovic had hit his stride, from which he has not fallen back, basically. And Nadal was still at a reasonable level. 2013 was still in front of him. So, then, why didn't Nole beat Rafa in the final at RG that year? That's probably the closest you'll ever get to the both of them at their best at RG. And it didn't even go to 5.

You would like Front's argument, because it supports your own. You keep saying that Novak has underachieved against Nadal at RG. And I will say, again, that that is unfair on Nadal and what he can do at RG. Of the other two greatest players of his era, he has played them 11 times at the French Open, (6 being finals and 2 SFs) and beaten them both every time. Yes, it may be different this year, but only if Rafa can't summon his best Roland Garros form. If he can, look out.

 

[Kieran]

Of the other two greatest players of his era, he has played them 11 times at the French Open, (6 being finals and 2 SFs) and beaten them both every time. Yes, it may be different this year, but only if Rafa can't summon his best Roland Garros form. If he can, look out.

Yeah, this is the truth, in a nutshell.

And those 11 defeats have yielded only a meagre 8 sets to the two losers. Now, that's not even arguably close. Only once did Rafa get taken to five sets, and four times he won in straights. Looked at starkly, there's no basis to say that anyone else could beat Rafa at his peak there. And I also agree with the last part, because we know it from previous history: when Rafa summons his best at RG, everybody look out...

 

[tented]

Of the other two greatest players of his era, he has played them 11 times at the French Open, (6 being finals and 2 SFs) and beaten them both every time. Yes, it may be different this year, but only if Rafa can't summon his best Roland Garros form. If he can, look out.

Yeah, this is the truth, in a nutshell.

And those 11 defeats have yielded only a meagre 8 sets to the two losers. Now, that's not even arguably close. Only once did Rafa get taken to five sets, and four times he won in straights. Looked at starkly, there's no basis to say that anyone else could beat Rafa at his peak there. And I also agree with the last part, because we know it from previous history: when Rafa summons his best at RG, everybody look out...

Allow me to distill it even more ...

In the end, no one will have ever beaten Rafa in peak form at Roland Garros. Period/full stop.

(Please don't make me go over what happened in '09 for the 1,873th time -- an anomaly set right the very next year.)

Even if Novak does beat him this year, it will be a 29-year-old Nadal who hasn't played a full season in years. Yes, it will be a win, but certain Djokovic fans need to realize it won't be the equivalent of Nadal taking down Federer at Wimbledon in '08.

 

[Kieran]

Going back to the topic at hand, and Nole's chances, I'd certainly give him a better chance this year than at any other year he's played. Rafa isn't only stinking the kip out right now, but he's got absolutely no form of beating top players since Paris last year. That's a long time. Whereas Nole is top of the game, though I don't see him being anywhere near his eye-busting, deranged levels of 2011. He hasn't been so thunderboltish, but then, if he's getting the results, why would he need to be?

Also, the rest of the field is poor now. Roger is four years on from his semi-final heroics of RG 2011 (and 3 years on from his semi-final thrashing of 2012), and although he's beaten Nole two of the last three times, I'd give him very little chance over five on clay. Ferrer is game, but he's not that man either. If we're looking at anyone other than Rafa to defeat Nole, we'd need the Hubble telescope and a very thick pair of glasses to find them...

 

[Denis]

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.

You're talking around yourself a little bit, (see bolded) but let's make it simple: In 2012, Djokovic had hit his stride, from which he has not fallen back, basically. And Nadal was still at a reasonable level. 2013 was still in front of him. So, then, why didn't Nole beat Rafa in the final at RG that year? That's probably the closest you'll ever get to the both of them at their best at RG. And it didn't even go to 5.

You would like Front's argument, because it supports your own. You keep saying that Novak has underachieved against Nadal at RG. And I will say, again, that that is unfair on Nadal and what he can do at RG. Of the other two greatest players of his era, he has played them 11 times at the French Open, (6 being finals and 2 SFs) and beaten them both every time. Yes, it may be different this year, but only if Rafa can't summon his best Roland Garros form. If he can, look out.

Not talking around myself, you just fail to comprehend, unfortunately a bit of a recurring trend with you like not understanding what a tautology is.

My point is not unfair towards Nadal. You have seen the finals between these two too. You have also seen the many masters matches where Novak has beaten Nadal on clay and the level that he had to muster to get there in 2011. His level has clearly not been there at RG facing Nadal, and no this is not solely 'because Nadal doesn't allow Novak to reach his level'. It's underachieving, plain and simple. Nerves, virus, mentally not there, etc. I am not saying that Novak would have beaten him every single time, lets be clear about that, just saying he should have done a whole lot better. Perhaps even getting at least one win out of one of their encounters at RG.

 

[Kieran]

Nerves, virus*, mentally not there, etc.

In other words, not good enough.

As I said a million times, MS events are not GS.



* What virus? SARS?

 

[Denis]

Nerves, virus*, mentally not there, etc.

In other words, not good enough.

As I said a million times, MS events are not GS.



* What virus? SARS?

:cover

There is no point in arguing with you then. Your level of argument comes down to 'If you ain't first, you're last'. Fine. I'm leaving it at this.

 

[Kieran]

Nerves, virus*, mentally not there, etc.

In other words, not good enough.

As I said a million times, MS events are not GS.



* What virus? SARS?

:cover

There is no point in arguing with you then. Your level of argument comes down to 'If you ain't first, you're last'. Fine. I'm leaving it at this.

And yours comes down to, "it doesn't matter if Nole has won only 4 sets in 7 matches - he's better than Rafa!"

Basically, that's it. You sound a bit like Nole in his calf years when he withdrew from their first RG match at two sets down (because his nose was runny), and immediately exclaimed, "I was thrashing him!" :lolz:

 

[Denis]

In other words, not good enough.

As I said a million times, MS events are not GS.



* What virus? SARS?

:cover

There is no point in arguing with you then. Your level of argument comes down to 'If you ain't first, you're last'. Fine. I'm leaving it at this.

And yours comes down to, "it doesn't matter if Nole has won only 4 sets in 7 matches - he's better than Rafa!"

Basically, that's it. You sound a bit like Nole in his calf years when he withdrew from their first RG match at two sets down (because his nose was runny), and immediately exclaimed, "I was thrashing him!" :lolz:

No, that is not what I am saying. :nono

 

[Kieran]

:cover

There is no point in arguing with you then. Your level of argument comes down to 'If you ain't first, you're last'. Fine. I'm leaving it at this.

And yours comes down to, "it doesn't matter if Nole has won only 4 sets in 7 matches - he's better than Rafa!"

Basically, that's it. You sound a bit like Nole in his calf years when he withdrew from their first RG match at two sets down (because his nose was runny), and immediately exclaimed, "I was thrashing him!" :lolz:

No, that is not what I am saying. :nono

Look, read my posts above, I've been fair with Novak in this thread, praising the guy because at least he's trying to take on Rafa, and he's doing a much better job of it than Roger.

We're all getting into shape for RG - just like the players :snicker - and let's enjoy these men while we can. I put another post up a few minutes ago which went back on topic, personally speaking, I think it sums up where we are...

 

[Moxie]

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.

You're talking around yourself a little bit, (see bolded) but let's make it simple: In 2012, Djokovic had hit his stride, from which he has not fallen back, basically. And Nadal was still at a reasonable level. 2013 was still in front of him. So, then, why didn't Nole beat Rafa in the final at RG that year? That's probably the closest you'll ever get to the both of them at their best at RG. And it didn't even go to 5.

You would like Front's argument, because it supports your own. You keep saying that Novak has underachieved against Nadal at RG. And I will say, again, that that is unfair on Nadal and what he can do at RG. Of the other two greatest players of his era, he has played them 11 times at the French Open, (6 being finals and 2 SFs) and beaten them both every time. Yes, it may be different this year, but only if Rafa can't summon his best Roland Garros form. If he can, look out.

Not talking around myself, you just fail to comprehend, unfortunately a bit of a recurring trend with you like not understanding what a tautology is.

My point is not unfair towards Nadal. You have seen the finals between these two too. You have also seen the many masters matches where Novak has beaten Nadal on clay and the level that he had to muster to get there in 2011. His level has clearly not been there at RG facing Nadal, and no this is not solely 'because Nadal doesn't allow Novak to reach his level'. It's underachieving, plain and simple. Nerves, virus, mentally not there, etc. I am not saying that Novak would have beaten him every single time, lets be clear about that, just saying he should have done a whole lot better. Perhaps even getting at least one win out of one of their encounters at RG.

I'm sure you don't mean to be a condescending prince riding in clown's knickers, but I explained to you what a tautology is. You didn't answer my simple question to your proposition of underachievement: why didn't Novak win the 2012 final, then? And yes, I've seen that one. The answer is that, except when aided by the weather, Djokovic was out-played. Full stop. Make whatever excuse you like. I'm waiting.

 

[mrzz]

You say that Kieran and I have "stayed with the facts," as if that's a bad thing.

No. You are missing the point. I am only making a sharp distinction between real and hypothetical matches. Generally, in this forum, "real" it is a perceived as a "good" thing. I only highlighted that as the discussion seemed clearly hypothetical to me.

It's a more interesting post than mrzz, unfortunately, who weighed the scales of justice blindly and concluded with great solemnity that if it was a match in Paris between them both at their peaks, he "must admit I give a small edge to Djokovic." Based upon what evidence, of course, is the obvious response, and this is why it feels that Rafa - who's beaten Nole seven times over five sets on red clay, losing only 4 sets - is getting sold short.

Justice is supposed to be blind, or not?

I know it sounds "unfair" that people would dare to think someone could beat peak Nadal at RG. But you are forgetting how little importance yourself give to "could". The evidence is obvious, unless you want to be blind yourself: all the other clay court matches between the two. Yes, yes, yes, they were not best of five, they were not at RG, we all know that. That's the point: people would like to see that Djokovic on a best of five, at RG. Maybe you are saying that it is impossible for him to do that. This is another story.

It sounds unfair because you are probably failing to see the whole point: Just take into account that "Peak" Djokovic (on clay) is a much more rare event than "peak" Nadal, at least approximation wise. Nadal spent ten years playing close to his peak at the second week of Roland Garros. Djokovic never quite did that (for a full week).

And, finally, I did misunderstand Denisovich's post, as he pointed, and I am sorry for that. In the end, in the hypothetical peak match, he gives Djokovic around a 30 or 40% shot, my "small edge" could be, say, 52%. We are not that far apart.