Nole's defeat in slam finals

[Obsi]

Because I saw her. Never once saw her renege in a match. There's no Melzer moments in Chrissie's resume...

OK you saw her. But based on what you saw, how did you come to the conclusion that Evert has never reneged in a match? What if Djokovic is always reliable but sometimes he isn't good enough?

I never once got the impression that she would have done better if she'd tried harder. Not once. I saw her upset and beaten by players she should beat, Kathy Jordan comes to mind one time, if memory serves, but it wasn't through a lack of effort or fortitude. With Novak, I felt a few times he let himself down in matches where he could have shown some heart. It used to be more regular, obviously, so much so we're tempted to draw a line in the sand and call him Pre-2011, and Post-2011, Novak, but even Post-2011 I've gotten that same impression a few times.

By the way, you don't have to defend him. Everybody admires Novak, or should do...

Bear in mind that in 2010 Novak discovered that he is intolerant to gluten http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/revealed-the-diet-that-saved-novak-djokovic-8775333.html

This disorder has affected him physically so probably that's why you got impression that in some mathes he's lost due to lack of effort.

 

[calitennis127]

That said, it's true that being 8-8 in slam finals is a poor record for a player of his caliber, no matter how we look at it.

I think he should be given a complete pass for his first two losses in slam finals. The 2007 US Open final mentioned above and the 2010 US Open final. In case of the latter, that was the first time Novak rediscovered his slam form in a while and Nadal was just a better player back then, playing the best tennis of his career. Novak just wasn't ready. His game wasn't quite where it needed to be and his shaky serve was a big indicator.

Wow, where do I start with this one?

Nadal was just a better player back then? ON HARDCOURTS??????

Okay, so let's look at the context. Nadal was coming off incredible performances against Murray in Toronto and Bagdatis in Cincinnati (the former being one of the most boring tennis matches I have ever witnessed). He was in such incredible form that it took him about 3 hours to beat Gabashvili in two tiebreak sets in the first round of the US Open, after which he also struggled against Istomin in the second round. Then, Nadal does the amazing by beating jaded versions of Verdasco and Youzhny each after they both came down from 2 sets to 0 down in the previous rounds, and the Verdasco match took place in 50-degree windy weather no less.

Then, going into the final, Djokovic had won each of the prior 3 matches against Nadal, all in 2009 on hardcourts, and he had done so in straight sets. And somehow you want to talk about that loss not being a disappointment?

In the semifinal, Djokovic had just defeated the king of the US Open at that time - Federer - and he fell to a petty hardcourt upstart in the final, a player who had never even reached the US Open final before. That most certainly was a disappointment and an underachieving performance by Djokovic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

That said, it's true that being 8-8 in slam finals is a poor record for a player of his caliber, no matter how we look at it.

I think he should be given a complete pass for his first two losses in slam finals. The 2007 US Open final mentioned above and the 2010 US Open final. In case of the latter, that was the first time Novak rediscovered his slam form in a while and Nadal was just a better player back then, playing the best tennis of his career. Novak just wasn't ready. His game wasn't quite where it needed to be and his shaky serve was a big indicator.

Wow, where do I start with this one?

Nadal was just a better player back then? ON HARDCOURTS??????

Okay, so let's look at the context. Nadal was coming off incredible performances against Murray in Toronto and Bagdatis in Cincinnati (the former being one of the most boring tennis matches I have ever witnessed). He was in such incredible form that it took him about 3 hours to beat Gabashvili in two tiebreak sets in the first round of the US Open, after which he also struggled against Istomin in the second round. Then, Nadal does the amazing by beating jaded versions of Verdasco and Youzhny each after they both came down from 2 sets to 0 down in the previous rounds, and the Verdasco match took place in 50-degree windy weather no less.

Then, going into the final, Djokovic had won each of the prior 3 matches against Nadal, all in 2009 on hardcourts, and he had done so in straight sets. And somehow you want to talk about that loss not being a disappointment?

In the semifinal, Djokovic had just defeated the king of the US Open at that time - Federer - and he fell to a petty hardcourt upstart in the final, a player who had never even reached the US Open final before. That most certainly was a disappointment and an underachieving performance by Djokovic.

Yes, late 2009 Nadal was exactly in the same kind of form that US Open 2010 Nadal was in. Nadal was the best player in the world at the time while most were surprised to see Djokovic in the final given the poor form he was in for a while and thought he fluked it out against Roger. Underachieving my ass.

I also find it hilarious you don't apply the same logic in your post to the 2013 final since Nadal was clearly in much better form and was the better player. Yet you maintained for 2 years Novak should be embarrassed by that loss (even though Nadal had beaten everyone that summer from Novak himself to Federer, Berdych, Dimitrov, your boy the world beater Janowicz, Isner, Raonic, etc...).

At least be consistent.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Novak said afterwards of loss to Stan, " I felt something special when we embraced". Yikes, The Stananimal really charmed Novak hasn't he . Today I see them exchanging pleasantly at the players parking lot entrance. Maybe, these two may need to room together :laydownlaughing

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, late 2009 Nadal was exactly in the same kind of form that US Open 2010 Nadal was in.

How was Nadal in that great a form in that tournament or in the summer? He had two very definitive losses in the summer hardcourt events, and he had one of the weakest draws he has ever faced in route to the US Open final.

Nadal was the best player in the world at the time while most were surprised to see Djokovic in the final given the poor form he was in for a while and thought he fluked it out against Roger.

Okay, what did Nadal do that was so impressive that summer? Win Wimbledon after a) barely winning two 5-setters in the first week because he can't handle the speed of the Wimbledon game and b) being lucky that Federer and Djokovic lost before the final?

I also find it hilarious you don't apply the same logic in your post to the 2013 final since Nadal was clearly in much better form and was the better player.

Did you see sets two and three of the US Open final? Djokovic was dominating with HIS forehand, doubling Nadal's winners. Also, my argument about 2010 isn't that Djokovic was in better form. Neither were all that great that summer, so the default goes to Djokovic because he has always been a better hardcourt player and he had won their last 3 matches.

Yet you maintained for 2 years Novak should be embarrassed by that loss (even though Nadal had beaten everyone that summer from Novak himself to Federer, Berdych, Dimitrov, your boy the world beater Janowicz, Isner, Raonic, etc...).

Janowicz was completely dictating that Montreal match and he was the better player for most of the 1st set. Nadal just stuck in there and did the gnat-al act before Janowicz let it slip away.

The Federer match? Don't even get me started. That was one of the classic terrible Federer losses to Nadal, when he refused to use the forehand down the line even though it was begging to be used and resorted to his normal patient-aggressive boneheaded tactics which have failed time after time. What he did at the end of the third set when he let it fly was what he should have been doing all match.

At least be consistent.

I wasn't talking about form in 2010 versus form in 2013. But in both cases, Djokovic's form was good enough to win against a lesser hardcourt player. He did not step up and get it done. The 2013 loss was the worse of the two, but the 2010 loss was also a bad one.

 

[Moxie]

Janowicz was completely dictating that Montreal match and he was the better player for most of the 1st set. Nadal just stuck in there and did the gnat-al act before Janowicz let it slip away.

The Federer match? Don't even get me started. That was one of the classic terrible Federer losses to Nadal, when he refused to use the forehand down the line even though it was begging to be used and resorted to his normal patient-aggressive boneheaded tactics which have failed time after time. What he did at the end of the third set when he let it fly was what he should have been doing all match.

At least be consistent.

I wasn't talking about form in 2010 versus form in 2013. But in both cases, Djokovic's form was good enough to win against a lesser hardcourt player. He did not step up and get it done. The 2013 loss was the worse of the two, but the 2010 loss was also a bad one.

You're forever making the case for a great first set, and refuse to see where the better player prevails. Janowicz has never proven himself to be a world-beater, so why should he be a Rafa-beater, beyond one match?

One of the "classic terrible Federer losses to Nadal?" :laydownlaughing There have been so many, I don't know how you can blame Roger at that point. He waited too long in his career to try to solve Nadal, and if that would have done any good, it's his fault.

In 2010, Djokovic was not prepared to be the player to beat Roger in the SF and Rafa in the F. It is what it is. Rafa had set his cap on that USO in 2010, and was not to be denied. In 2013, Rafa was the in-form player on HCs. You can hate as much as you want that Novak didn't do better, but he only really had a strong set and a half. Once Nadal skunked him out of the 3rd, he went away pretty mildly in the 4th. I'd say that Rafa also upped his level, but even if you have to make it about Djokovic, he didn't fight for it, and take it to a 5th. This does not tell us that Djokovic was the guy who should have won that day.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How was Nadal in that great a form in that tournament or in the summer? He had two very definitive losses in the summer hardcourt events, and he had one of the weakest draws he has ever faced in route to the US Open final.

How was he not in great form that tournament? He had reached the final without dropping a set (yes, easy draw and all) AND had looked great throughout, something everyone acknowledged, which included serving much bigger and better than anything before or since. What a joke.

Okay, what did Nadal do that was so impressive that summer?

Win back to back slams. What a joke.

Did you see sets two and three of the US Open final? Djokovic was dominating with HIS forehand, doubling Nadal's winners. Also, my argument about 2010 isn't that Djokovic was in better form. Neither were all that great that summer, so the default goes to Djokovic because he has always been a better hardcourt player and he had won their last 3 matches.

Lol, default goes to the player who hadn't won anything in ages, and not the best player in the world carrying the momentum of two slam wins that far outweigh two masters titles losses? Have you ever thought Nadal knew when to peak that summer? I mean he's a physical and mental freak by your own admission...

What a joke.

Janowicz was completely dictating that Montreal match and he was the better player for most of the 1st set. Nadal just stuck in there and did the gnat-al act before Janowicz let it slip away.

The Federer match? Don't even get me started. That was one of the classic terrible Federer losses to Nadal, when he refused to use the forehand down the line even though it was begging to be used and resorted to his normal patient-aggressive boneheaded tactics which have failed time after time. What he did at the end of the third set when he let it fly was what he should have been doing all match.

Nadal won all the matches in question, as he did every other match on hards that summer. What a joke.

I wasn't talking about form in 2010 versus form in 2013. But in both cases, Djokovic's form was good enough to win against a lesser hardcourt player. He did not step up and get it done. The 2013 loss was the worse of the two, but the 2010 loss was also a bad one.

No, you got caught in your own double standard logic and now you're backtracking. You may not agree with my views on tennis but you know for a fact there's no way I'm dumb enough not to see this. I'd rather you just ignored that part than provide the intelligence insulting above arbitrary dumb logic.

Nadal was a better player in their 2010 US Open match. It's not even debatable. You can't isolate a match from context. Just because Djokovic is a better hard court player in general doesn't mean he was better then nor does it mean he was capable of playing good enough tennis to beat Nadal at that particular moment in time. Otherwise Nadal should never lose a match on clay ever, which for years, was actually pretty close to the truth...of course, such a feat can only be done with athleticism and stamina. That's why he went half a decade virtually undefeated on clay. That's all you need. Stamina and athleticism. As such, I'm waiting for Gael Monfils to run wild on clay for the next 5 years.

 

[calitennis127]

How was he not in great form that tournament? He had reached the final without dropping a set (yes, easy draw and all) AND had looked great throughout, something everyone acknowledged, which included serving much bigger and better than anything before or since. What a joke.

No, not everyone acknowledged that he looked "great throughout". I vividly remember Patrick McEnroe in particular talking about his very unimpressive first two victories against Gabashvili and Istomin. I will grant that he was in confident and impressive form against Simon and Youzhny, but I don't think you would get too excited about any other top player beating Simon at the top of his game or Youzhny a day after a 5-set marathon.

Lol, default goes to the player who hadn't won anything in ages, and not the best player in the world carrying the momentum of two slam wins that far outweigh two masters titles losses? Have you ever thought Nadal knew when to peak that summer? I mean he's a physical and mental freak by your own admission...

This is about form in that particular stretch of the year and on that particular surface. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010. Nor of course was Djokovic. But for you to deny the significance of a three-match winning streak on the surface from just a year before is baffling to me. When Nadal used to go into claycourt seasons without having won much of anything since the French Open, did you deny that he had an advantage on, say, Berdych or Tsonga when they played on the dirt? No, I didn't think so.

You may not agree with my views on tennis

I don't entirely disagree. I mainly just think that things you believe are "low percentage" really aren't as low-percentage or risky as you believe.

but you know for a fact there's no way I'm dumb enough not to see this. I'd rather you just ignored that part than provide the intelligence insulting above arbitrary dumb logic.

I am trying to see where the double standard was and I can't find it.

Nadal was a better player in their 2010 US Open match. It's not even debatable. You can't isolate a match from context. Just because Djokovic is a better hard court player in general doesn't mean he was better then nor does it mean he was capable of playing good enough tennis to beat Nadal at that particular moment in time.

100% agreed, as a general principle. However, I do think Djokovic had enough game to win at that time.

That's why he went half a decade virtually undefeated on clay. That's all you need. Stamina and athleticism.

That is a straw man argument. I have never said that this is all that has gone into Nadal's success as a tennis player. What I have said and I maintain is that when it comes to his biggest matches against Top 10 and Top 5 opponents, the practical elements of extraordinarily high first-serve percentage, excellent stamina, and conscious gameplan on the big points have been what have helped him win those matches.

If you watch the 2010 US Open final and can't see Djokovic wheezing after numerous long rallies while Nadal looked like he was just warming up on a treadmill, then either you have a vision problem or you don't have much familiarity with high-intensity exercise.

As such, I'm waiting for Gael Monfils to run wild on clay for the next 5 years.

Seriously, that is the best you can offer as a counter-argument?

First of all, Monfils very clearly does not have very good stamina. We are talking about a guy who puts his elbows on his knees before almost every point when he is returning. He clearly breathes much heavier on a frequent basis than Nadal ever has. His stamina is nowhere near Nadal's.

Also, from a tennis perspective, this is ludicrous and you know it, which is why you are trying to score a point on me with it. Monfils's footwork is lazy and a split-second slow all the time, whereas Nadal and the other Top 10 players track balls down with decisive movement and efficient footwork regularly. Monfils does not maximize his athleticism in terms of crisp footwork.

My argument about Nadal's stamina has not been that this alone is a defining attribute. My argument has been that when it comes to his keynote wins in the quarters, semis, and finals of big events over the years, it has been far more of a factor in setting him apart from the top opposition than his forehand. That may not sound as glamorous as you would like, but I do believe it is the truth.

That said, of all of Nadal's non-clay Slam finals wins over Djokovic, 2010 was the most convincing, just based on Djokovic wheezing and puffing like he was after the long rallies while Nadal was fresh as a daisy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010.

Up there with your most insane claims ever. Bravo.

 

[Fiero425]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010.

Up there with your most insane claims ever. Bravo.

I don't even like Nadal; never have, but I always list 2010 as one of the true great seasons:

- http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4069&pid=193996#pid193996 -

Federer has 3 seasons w/ 3 majors & Masters' wins: '04, '06, & '07

- Nadal has 2: '10 & '13

- Djokovic makes the "great year" list w/ historic '11 & '15 (TBD)

 

[calitennis127]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010.

Up there with your most insane claims ever. Bravo.

Yeah, his performance against Murray in Toronto was out-of-this-world, kind of like Monfils' amazing stamina.

 

[Moxie]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010.

Up there with your most insane claims ever. Bravo.

Yeah, his performance against Murray in Toronto was out-of-this-world, kind of like Monfils' amazing stamina.

Nadal won 3 Majors in 2010. You are unlikely to convince anyone that he "was not in that great form" simply by nitpicking a couple of matches. Seriously...everyone knows you have a bug against Nadal, but be to that blinkered is really surprising.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Nadal was not in that great a form in 2010.

Up there with your most insane claims ever. Bravo.

Yeah, his performance against Murray in Toronto was out-of-this-world, kind of like Monfils' amazing stamina.

Nah his form in that match was not that great, just like winning 3 back to back majors and 3 back to back masters in one year -- which included being undefeated on one surface and dropping TWO sets the entire clay court season -- is not that great.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I say this a lot but this is by far among the dumbest things I've read around these parts. When even Fiero is forced to give Nadal credit and disagree with your point, you know you've gone full "special."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, Now Roger has matched Nole's record of losing eight GS finals. :cover

At least he went out only to other members of Big Three; to Rafa six times and to Nole twice.

 

[nehmeth]

Novak is back above .500 with his Wimbledon win. Will be nice to see him add more wins from here on out.

 

[rahulpawar]

So, Now Roger has matched Nole's record of losing eight GS finals. :cover

At least he went out only to other members of Big Three; to Rafa six times and to Nole twice.

9 times...One time to del potro as well.

 

[herios]

Novak is back above .500 with his Wimbledon win. Will be nice to see him add more wins from here on out.

And he finally evens the H2H with Roger, now they are 20-20 (what a great number)

 

[Fiero425]

Novak is back above .500 with his Wimbledon win. Will be nice to see him add more wins from here on out.

And he finally evens the H2H with Roger, now they are 20-20 (what a great number)

You never really had that many match-ups with past top stars! McEnroe and Borg only played 14 times; splitting them! It just prove how good Rafa, Nole, and Roger have been to have so many encounters in the semi's and finals; proving my point how gutless the rest of the tour has been by not upsetting them more! I find this absolutely incomprehensible that this can occur so many times; Nadal/ Federer, Federer/Nole, Nole/Rafa! It shouldn't have happened; esp. all those meetings at the FO! One or both should have been upset; Roger too! How in the world could he make so many finals? uzzled :nono :dodgy: :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, Now Roger has matched Nole's record of losing eight GS finals. :cover

At least he went out only to other members of Big Three; to Rafa six times and to Nole twice.

9 times...One time to del potro as well.

Thanks. Forgot JMDP (as he is out of action for a long time). Roger has taken over Novak. It looks like only Lendl has lost more times in finals. With two more losses Roger can tie Lendl for the record.:cover