Re-visiting Federer's awful loss to Nadal at the 2011 French Open.....

[monfed]

Top-drawer debate from you, as usual.

Debating a clueless dulltard like you? LOL not worth it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes he was. Djokovic was totally dominating the match and was in cruise control in the 3rd set before collapsing.

Djokovic got his ass handed to him in the first set. He only started dominating midway through the second and in the first half of the third, where in fairness to your point, he looked like the far more likely winner. After he lost that set the match was a foregone conclusion so I wouldn't put too much stock in the 4th, but it's funny how you completely ignore the first set. Feel free to post highlights of that set. So no, Djokovic did not completely dominate the match, but he definitely blew it in that 3rd set. It's just funny how he "completely dominated a match" in which he was thoroughly dominated in 2 out of the 4 sets, way more than he dominated during his short stretch of domination.

 

[calitennis127]

You've made the same argument over and over. It never becomes more convincing, or changes the outcome of the match. Except that you always forget that the first set was firmly in Nadal's control, with the early break. And it wasn't that long...about 45 minutes, which is short for them.

Djokovic was flat in the first set, with both players hardly hitting a winner - which is just how Nadal likes it. And yes, Nadal won it, but how about the second set, which entailed numerous grueling rallies before Djokovic got the break that opened up the match? And the fact that Djokovic had just won a very difficult 5-set match against Wawrinka? Not to mention the nature of US Open matches between the two (see below)?

If you need the play-by to remind you, here it is. You ignore that advantage every time you talk about this match. You focus on the fact that Novak won the 2nd, and of course the 3rd was crucial. Which Nadal won. They you act like anyone with a brain or a bit of understanding of sports psychology would know why Djokovic lost the 4th at 1.

That's correct, and you don't have it. So let me teach you something here.....

There's a reason Djokovic and Nadal have never played a 5-set match at the US Open, and that is because it is a court that simultaneously requires offensive attacking and allows for defensive excellence. Pace-wise it is somewhere in the middle of the slower Melbourne courts and the faster courts of Wimbledon. So when Djokovic and Nadal play each other they both pummel the ball offensively while prolonging the points with great defense. That results in exhausting points where they push each other to the max by going big and playing effective defense.

Look at the 5-setters that do happen at the US Open.....like the one tonight between Federer and Dimitrov. They usually happen when there are quick points and patchy streaks of play, not long drawn-out rallies such as the ones that Djokovic and Nadal tend to play against each other. That is because it would be almost inhuman to play their style of match versus each other for 5 sets.

Look at the Australian Open and ask yourself why Djokovic is so dominant there: it is because the ball bounces lower than it does on clay while playing slow. That makes Nadal utterly helpless against him because he can't be offensive at all and Djokovic can win points both by prolonging the rallies and stepping in whenever he feels like it.

Which brings us back to the 2013 US Open final.....the intensity of the rallies in the first 3 sets was such that (just as in 2011) the winner of the third set was going to take the 4th. Too much energy had been expended and both players were too tired to come back from 2 sets to 1. Nadal knew that and that's why he pulled out the full arsenal at 4-4, 0-40 in the third set to hold in that game. But you - being characteristically oblivious - did not know that apparently.

Too much energy had been used by both players in rallies where they were going big offensively while also pushing themselves to the max defensively.....the US Open court allows players to be highly offensive while also having the opportunity to play excellent defense. It is not impossible to win with defense at the US Open like it is at Wimbledon.

Really? Isn't it best of 5? Didn't Djokovic have 2 more sets to put things right? Wasn't it the final of a Major?

These questions are just embarrassing to read in light of everything I explained above.

If Djokovic didn't have the balls and the game to pull himself together after that, did he really deserve to win it?

Isn't the concept of "having the balls" to do something a profoundly sexist figure of speech? Why can't you ask if Djokovic had the ovaries or clit to pull himself together?

And you think it's astonishing and basically wrong that he lost.

That's correct, I do. He had a breakpoint to go up a double break early in the third set and then despite losing that he still got himself three breakpoints at 0-40, 4-4 on Nadal's serve. It was a horrendous loss in every conceivable way.

One of the worst of his career.....up there with the Berdych loss at Wimbledon in 2010 which resulted in Djokovic delaying his first Wimbledon title by a year. He could have gotten started on that a year earlier if he had not flopped against Berdych.

 

[calitennis127]

Everyone watch this rally and then meditate on how Moxie actually just asked why the 4th set would be a wash in favor of the 3rd set winner. Chee I wonder (LOL):

 

[Front242]

^ So much passive pushing it'd make a midwife proud.