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

[Kieran]

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.

Blindly overlooking all the evidence of matches they actually played in Paris, then yeah, 52% looks about right... :cover

 

[Federberg]

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.

I'm not Rafa fan, but I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that anyone of his contemporaries has a greater than 50% chance of taking down the King of Clay at his peak. I am simply staggered. There doesn't seem to be any attachment to reality in this belief

 

[Kieran]

Using this bizarro world mathematics, peak-Roger has about a 20% chance of beating Rafa at Wimbledon...

 

[isabelle]

The Fog gave Nole a good reason to be optimist in RG !!

 

[Kieran]

The Fog gave Nole a good reason to be optimist in RG !!

Yeah, I expected Rafa to correct that first match in Barcelona, but this time he lost even more heavily. Grounds for positive thinking for Rafa fans at MC were trodden on in Barce...

 

[mrzz]

I'm not Rafa fan, but I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that anyone of his contemporaries has a greater than 50% chance of taking down the King of Clay at his peak. I am simply staggered. There doesn't seem to be any attachment to reality in this belief

My dear fellow posters Federberg and Kieran:

It is OBVIOUS that there is little attachment to reality in this, as from the begining I said that the discussion was hypothetical. So, we are talking about a match between two non-existing players. There is no available statistics between non-existing players. I would like to repeat the last sentence 10 times, but that would not be polite.

All that is available is discussions about match-ups and etc, and people's memory (which is selective), about what one player could do. We have discussed repeatedly on this forum how Djokovic is a bad match up for Nadal, so, in the end, only did the simple leap of faith that peak Djokovic would be a bad match up for peak Nadal.

 

[Federberg]

^Ok noted. The fact you have managed to get me and that other poster on the same side shows how far off the beaten track you're straying But if it's harmless fantasy then so be it! But I would be interested to hear a specific match on clay you can present as peak Nole, and compare that to the monster that whupped Roger in the RG final at 08.

PS, I would be happy to suggest that peak Rafa would have difficulty with Nole playing his best on a cold moist Sunday at RG. But I would still give a greater than 50% win possibility to Rafa

 

[Denis]

^Ok noted. The fact you have managed to get me and that other poster on the same side shows how far off the beaten track you're straying But if it's harmless fantasy then so be it! But I would be interested to hear a specific match on clay you can present as peak Nole, and compare that to the monster that whupped Roger in the RG final at 08.

PS, I would be happy to suggest that peak Rafa would have difficulty with Nole playing his best on a cold moist Sunday at RG. But I would still give a greater than 50% win possibility to Rafa

Peak Novak on clay are these matches for me (happy to see other Djokovic fans express their views on this):

Madrid 2011 final

Rome 2011 final

 

[Federberg]

And yet that same Djokovic wasn't good enough to get past an old man. Even a peak player has peaks and troughs within that peak run. I'm not sure about Novak's stability to be honest. I mentioned this before, in terms of how disadvantaged he is likely to be psychologically chasing this holy grail. It wasn't easy for Roger in 2009, and I suspect the same for Novak this year (if indeed this is his year). I still think one of the funniest things that could happen is if he beats Rafa in a semi and has to face Roger in the final (hardly likely I know), but he could easily lose that match because the level of expectation will be crushing, and he'll be facing the one person he would hate to face, because Roger will exploit any sign of mental weakness

 

[mrzz]

(happy to see other Djokovic fans express their views on this):

Why everyone keeps attacking me on this thread!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Ok, ok, I'll try another forum. Sigh...

 

[Federberg]

(happy to see other Djokovic fans express their views on this):

Why everyone keeps attacking me on this thread!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Ok, ok, I'll try another forum. Sigh...

Please don't feel that way. We're all tennis fans, and we're free to express our views. Obviously if a view is controversial posters might challenge you, but it's just fun

 

[Denis]

(happy to see other Djokovic fans express their views on this):

Why everyone keeps attacking me on this thread!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Ok, ok, I'll try another forum. Sigh...

Not attacking you at all! Dude, I just liked all of your posts in this thread

I genuinely was interested in seeing more awesome Novak performances

 

[Kieran]

My dear fellow posters Federberg and Kieran:

It is OBVIOUS that there is little attachment to reality in this,

We noticed.

as from the begining I said that the discussion was hypothetical. So, we are talking about a match between two non-existing players. There is no available statistics between non-existing players. I would like to repeat the last sentence 10 times, but that would not be polite.

Hypothetically, it might not even be read after 8 times. :snicker

All that is available is discussions about match-ups and etc, and people's memory (which is selective), about what one player could do. We have discussed repeatedly on this forum how Djokovic is a bad match up for Nadal, so, in the end, only did the simple leap of faith that peak Djokovic would be a bad match up for peak Nadal.

This is where you jumped the shark, and please don't take disagreement with you as being nasty. It's not. But you say there's no basis of reality, it's all hypothetical, then you proceed to enter into evidence whatever suits you, and ignore the blazingly obvious fact that they've met 7 times over five sets on clay, and in these matches, it wasn't until 2012 that Nole actually won a set. There were four matches played before this where he was downed in straights.

That, my friend, is peak-Rafa, who you say would have only 48% chance of victory in Paris against a player he currently stands at 100% against. We have a large enough sample here to draw conclusions from, and they're not conclusions that can support your hypothesis...

 

[Kieran]

(happy to see other Djokovic fans express their views on this):

Why everyone keeps attacking me on this thread!?!?!?!?!?!!?!

Ok, ok, I'll try another forum. Sigh...

Come on, don't get like that, we like your posts, and they provoke a reply. It's all part of the cut and thrust... :hug

 

[shawnbm]

Novak has been established as the odds-on favorite in Paris. Nadal is second at 7-2 and then Wawrinka and Nishikori at 16-1.

 

[Denis]

Novak has been established as the odds-on favorite in Paris. Nadal is second at 7-2 and then Wawrinka and Nishikori at 16-1.

Can you hedge or shortsell those Wawrinka odds? Might be some good money in that. :devil

 

[mrzz]

Boys, I was joking, but thanks for the care shown.

This is where you jumped the shark, and please don't take disagreement with you as being nasty.

No, I don't, you noble forum colleague.

It's not. But you say there's no basis of reality, it's all hypothetical, then you proceed to enter into evidence whatever suits you, and ignore the blazingly obvious fact that they've met 7 times over five sets on clay, and in these matches, it wasn't until 2012 that Nole actually won a set. There were four matches played before this where he was downed in straights.

No, I don't, as I simply produced no evidence (apart from citing the matchup argument).

That, my friend, is peak-Rafa, who you say would have only 48% chance of victory in Paris against a player he currently stands at 100% against. We have a large enough sample here to draw conclusions from, and they're not conclusions that can support your hypothesis...

No, that is real Rafa, who is always amazingly close to the utopic peak Rafa, against the real Djokovic, who was not able in most of these occasions to be that close to his best, I guess. I do not see this as an offense to Nadal's legacy, quite the opposite, but maybe you do.

You know what's funny? I do not give myself too much importance to these hypothetical scenarios. Maybe sometimes one or other sigh thinking "oh, this guy could have done much better", but that's all. I just got in the discussion because, as I said, I tought people were talking about different things.

And think before your next reply, otherwise I'll bring peak Nalbandian to the discussion.

 

[Federberg]

Novak has been established as the odds-on favorite in Paris. Nadal is second at 7-2 and then Wawrinka and Nishikori at 16-1.

Can you hedge or shortsell those Wawrinka odds? Might be some good money in that. :devil

If you do that, I hope for your sake Stanimal doesn't appear :snicker

 

[Federberg]

No, that is real Rafa, who is always amazingly close to the utopic peak Rafa, against the real Djokovic, who was not able in most of these occasions to be that close to his best, I guess. I do not see this as an offense to Nadal's legacy, quite the opposite, but maybe you do.

But don't you see? That's exactly the point. One of peak Rafa's strengths is his ability to bring down the performance of who he plays. He did it Roger time and time again!

 

[mrzz]

Can you hedge or shortsell those Wawrinka odds? Might be some good money in that. :devil

Agreed (even if I like Wawrinka's game). I guess the best you can do in that regard is to accept bets at this rate (that is, be the dealer). I think this would be a good topic for a thread: at which rate would you accept bets at RG? I would love to see the Nadal numbers...