Whats wrong with Novak Djokovic? Former world No.1's fall explained after shock defeat to Denis Isto

[Federberg]

Like it or not, I have to agree with you. Folks will be looking to the next Rafa-Novak meet-up. Rafa can't keep going down to him at every match-up. But, hey, Roger got a little help on his side, too.

What help? Murray?

 

[Moxie]

What help? Murray?

Don't let's get into the wars, but, for one, yes. Murray was the in-form player. I'm also going to review my assessment of the draw: Berdych was not in-form, and Nishikori is out of DC with the injury he was already carrying. His real test was Wawrinka, and he passed that. A lot has been made of Roger getting through these top 10 guys, but 2 weren't top form, and I think that's not unfair to say. On Rafa's side, he would have been relieved to see Novak out of the way, but let's not pretend that the top half of the draw didn't feel more snake-bit until Andy went out. I do think Sasha Zverev and this version of Grigor Dimitrov looked more dangerous, for being younger and more unknowable. I'm just saying, don't say Rafa was the only one that didn't get a bit of help.

 

[Federberg]

Don't let's get into the wars, but, for one, yes. Murray was the in-form player. I'm also going to review my assessment of the draw: Berdych was not in-form, and Nishikori is out of DC with the injury he was already carrying. His real test was Wawrinka, and he passed that. A lot has been made of Roger getting through these top 10 guys, but 2 weren't top form, and I think that's not unfair to say. On Rafa's side, he would have been relieved to see Novak out of the way, but let's not pretend that the top half of the draw didn't feel more snake-bit until Andy went out. I do think Sasha Zverev and this version of Grigor Dimitrov looked more dangerous, for being younger and more unknowable. I'm just saying, don't say Rafa was the only one that didn't get a bit of help.

Wow!
Really? Sorry but you're fitting the "facts" to rationalise events. Not worth going into the players he beat, and I'm surprised to see this sort of thing from you. Quite apart from Murray not being good enough to get to his spot, when was the last time he even won a set against Roger. This is the reverse of the "Roger was lucky not to play Rafa at RG 09".

It's a steaming pile of manure, but if it makes you feel better have at it

 

[DarthFed]

You clearly did not watch the Nishikori match if you think he wasn't in form. Injury or not he played outstanding much like Dimitrov in the semi as that match was very close to Nadal-Dimitrov in quality of play.

Berd isn't great by any means but neither is Zverev at this point. Given what we saw from Roger there's no way he'd have had to go 5 vs. Sascha if we are being honest. Let's not compare the break Rafa got with Nole losing to Roger not having to face Murray. Roger has won 5 straight vs Andy and something like 10 straight sets while Rafa has been baptized by Nole 7 straight times and 15 sets overall. There's no comparison here.

 

[britbox]

Don't let's get into the wars, but, for one, yes. Murray was the in-form player. I'm also going to review my assessment of the draw: Berdych was not in-form, and Nishikori is out of DC with the injury he was already carrying. His real test was Wawrinka, and he passed that. A lot has been made of Roger getting through these top 10 guys, but 2 weren't top form, and I think that's not unfair to say. On Rafa's side, he would have been relieved to see Novak out of the way, but let's not pretend that the top half of the draw didn't feel more snake-bit until Andy went out. I do think Sasha Zverev and this version of Grigor Dimitrov looked more dangerous, for being younger and more unknowable. I'm just saying, don't say Rafa was the only one that didn't get a bit of help.

Seriously?

 

[Carol]

He is busy with his the real estate business

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-11m-two-New-York-condos.html#ixzz4XXAFlTWO

 

[Moxie]

You clearly did not watch the Nishikori match if you think he wasn't in form. Injury or not he played outstanding much like Dimitrov in the semi as that match was very close to Nadal-Dimitrov in quality of play.

Berd isn't great by any means but neither is Zverev at this point. Given what we saw from Roger there's no way he'd have had to go 5 vs. Sascha if we are being honest. Let's not compare the break Rafa got with Nole losing to Roger not having to face Murray. Roger has won 5 straight vs Andy and something like 10 straight sets while Rafa has been baptized by Nole 7 straight times and 15 sets overall. There's no comparison here.

I was just revisiting my argument why I didn't think he had a tough draw, and you thought it was terrible, though even you allowed he was better off on Murray's side. So he played Mischa Zverev instead. He might have beaten Murray, too, but I bet it would have been a tougher match.

 

[Federberg]

I was just revisiting my argument why I didn't think he had a tough draw, and you thought it was terrible, though even you allowed he was better off on Murray's side. So he played Mischa Zverev instead. He might have beaten Murray, too, but I bet it would have been a tougher match.

Seriously... what's your objective here? This is as pure a case of woulda coulda as I can remember? A 35 year old who takes out more top 10 players on his way to a slam win than anyone in decades, beats your guy in the final... and somehow what... it's undeserved? He got lucky? It wasn't as impressive? What exactly is the point of this? It's coming across as a case of really sour grapes to me... but please elaborate, maybe I'm being unfair

Do we have to go back and assess every slam win now and judge whether the winner had a tough draw? What about when Rafa won the US Open? Frankly who cares?

 

[DarthFed]

I was just revisiting my argument why I didn't think he had a tough draw, and you thought it was terrible, though even you allowed he was better off on Murray's side. So he played Mischa Zverev instead. He might have beaten Murray, too, but I bet it would have been a tougher match.

Your argument before the event was that he got lucky due to having two wildcards to start out with and that somehow made his whole draw easy when he was slotted to face two top 10 players in rounds 3 and 4 and the #1 in the QF's. And what I said was he of course had a tough draw (common sense) and that it is expected due to his ranking being so low. I wasn't complaining about it.

Again we and everyone else knows who got the bigger break in their draw between Fed (Murray losing) and Rafa (Novak losing). The main worry for Roger playing Murray is that it would have been on the heels of a 5 setter. He doesn't recover well from those normally, certainly not as well as Rafa still does. So yes, of course it was easier for Roger to face Zverev but that still doesn't change the fact he had a very difficult draw just to make the final. Same with Rafa, Dimitrov played well but he was happy as a clam to see Sir Grigor instead of the guy who has won 6 AO's who just so happens to have tossed Rafa up 7 straight matches and 15 straight sets.

 

[shawnbm]

This kind of stuff annoys me. Both Rafa and Roger had to gut out wins against quality and mostly younger opponents. Whoever is in the top ten is a major hurdle--that is why getting the ranking up is important. One does not necessarily want to face a top ten player in the third or fourth round and for good reason. The idea these two did not earn their place in the final in Melbourne is ludicrous--upsets happen and those with the game and mental fortitude to take advantage usually do. Were Andy and Nole expected to bow out in week one? No. When they did, did not all these up and comers likely think this was their chance (Milos, Kei, Grigor, Dominic, even Tomas--to say nothing of Stanimal--a proven major winner and obstacle--licking his chops) to grab a major and prepare to do so? In the end, did not the great lions of winter come in and smash all their dreams to bits like the champs of mettle that they are? you betcha!

 

[Moxie]

Seriously... what's your objective here? This is as pure a case of woulda coulda as I can remember? A 35 year old who takes out more top 10 players on his way to a slam win than anyone in decades, beats your guy in the final... and somehow what... it's undeserved? He got lucky? It wasn't as impressive? What exactly is the point of this? It's coming across as a case of really sour grapes to me... but please elaborate, maybe I'm being unfair

Do we have to go back and assess every slam win now and judge whether the winner had a tough draw? What about when Rafa won the US Open? Frankly who cares?

Naw, I was just feeling grumpy. Everyone around where I live is flipping out about the politics, and, while I was early on taking the bright side about Rafa's AO results, it just got on my last nerve yesterday. So, yes, pretty sour, for which I apologize to everyone in the Fed camp. I'll try to go back to my normally sunny self. :lulz2:

 

[shawnbm]

I feel you, moxie. I understand how you feel. Es hora de beber algo fuerte, tía

 

[Moxie]

I feel you, moxie. I understand how you feel. Es hora de beber algo fuerte, tía

Luckily, it's Friday night! Sí, se puede.

 

[Moxie]

Your argument before the event was that he got lucky due to having two wildcards to start out with and that somehow made his whole draw easy when he was slotted to face two top 10 players in rounds 3 and 4 and the #1 in the QF's. And what I said was he of course had a tough draw (common sense) and that it is expected due to his ranking being so low. I wasn't complaining about it.

Again we and everyone else knows who got the bigger break in their draw between Fed (Murray losing) and Rafa (Novak losing). The main worry for Roger playing Murray is that it would have been on the heels of a 5 setter. He doesn't recover well from those normally, certainly not as well as Rafa still does. So yes, of course it was easier for Roger to face Zverev but that still doesn't change the fact he had a very difficult draw just to make the final. Same with Rafa, Dimitrov played well but he was happy as a clam to see Sir Grigor instead of the guy who has won 6 AO's who just so happens to have tossed Rafa up 7 straight matches and 15 straight sets.

At the risk of my recently regained good will, I just want to clarify a couple of things with you here, and posit something: I brought my position on the draw back up because, while Roger beat these top 10 guys, I said early doors that Kei and Berdy weren't on the form to their rankings on paper. Not taking away from Roger's wins, just saying that I called those. And I fully say Wawrinka win was big.

And let me offer this: Rafa was probably lucky to have skipped playing Novak. Or, it might have been a great opportunity to get past THIS version of Novak. (See OP.) Matches not played, so we'll never know, and obviously I can respect the match-ups. I just don't want you to tell me that Roger would have beaten #1 and Rafa wouldn't have beaten #2. I think theoretical matches should be given at least some unknown factor. If both lost early, both were beatable.

 

[DarthFed]

At the risk of my recently regained good will, I just want to clarify a couple of things with you here, and posit something: I brought my position on the draw back up because, while Roger beat these top 10 guys, I said early doors that Kei and Berdy weren't on the form to their rankings on paper. Not taking away from Roger's wins, just saying that I called those. And I fully say Wawrinka win was big.

And let me offer this: Rafa was probably lucky to have skipped playing Novak. Or, it might have been a great opportunity to get past THIS version of Novak. (See OP.) Matches not played, so we'll never know, and obviously I can respect the match-ups. I just don't want you to tell me that Roger would have beaten #1 and Rafa wouldn't have beaten #2. I think theoretical matches should be given at least some unknown factor. If both lost early, both were beatable.

Sorry sweetheart but you're losing credibility by saying Kei wasn't in form. I have to ask again, did you actually see that match? A five set brawl with Roger may have made the injury worse but regardless that was a close 2nd to Nadal-Dimitrov in terms of the best quality matches of the tournament. Even if Berd and Kei weren't in good form, which is completely false for Kei at the very least, you're not talking normal comfortable 3rd and 4th round matches for Roger or anyone else.

And if Djoker had made the semi that would've indicated he was in decent enough form to be the heavy favorite. Let's not act like Murray losing was a bigger break for Roger than Nole losing was for Rafa. It's not even close.

 

[Carol]

Your argument before the event was that he got lucky due to having two wildcards to start out with and that somehow made his whole draw easy when he was slotted to face two top 10 players in rounds 3 and 4 and the #1 in the QF's. And what I said was he of course had a tough draw (common sense) and that it is expected due to his ranking being so low. I wasn't complaining about it.

Again we and everyone else knows who got the bigger break in their draw between Fed (Murray losing) and Rafa (Novak losing). The main worry for Roger playing Murray is that it would have been on the heels of a 5 setter. He doesn't recover well from those normally, certainly not as well as Rafa still does. So yes, of course it was easier for Roger to face Zverev but that still doesn't change the fact he had a very difficult draw just to make the final. Same with Rafa, Dimitrov played well but he was happy as a clam to see Sir Grigor instead of the guy who has won 6 AO's who just so happens to have tossed Rafa up 7 straight matches and 15 straight sets.

I feel you, moxie. I understand how you feel. Es hora de beber algo fuerte, tía

Oye tío, también hablas español?

 

[Moxie]

Sorry sweetheart but you're losing credibility by saying Kei wasn't in form. I have to ask again, did you actually see that match? A five set brawl with Roger may have made the injury worse but regardless that was a close 2nd to Nadal-Dimitrov in terms of the best quality matches of the tournament. Even if Berd and Kei weren't in good form, which is completely false for Kei at the very least, you're not talking normal comfortable 3rd and 4th round matches for Roger or anyone else.

And if Djoker had made the semi that would've indicated he was in decent enough form to be the heavy favorite. Let's not act like Murray losing was a bigger break for Roger than Nole losing was for Rafa. It's not even close.

I only said Kei was injured enough before to lose the final in the Brisbane final, where it was apparent. And you said yourself that you were worried about Roger facing the #5. And it was a tough match.

 

[DarthFed]

^ im not following. Injured or not coming into the tournament he played pretty damn well in the match vs. Roger. The stats from that match were pretty ridiculous.

 

[Moxie]

^ im not following. Injured or not coming into the tournament he played pretty damn well in the match vs. Roger. The stats from that match were pretty ridiculous.

The thing about you is that, if Roger beat them, they were still playing awesome, anyway. If Roger lost, he must have been purely crap. And if Roger won, it can't possibly be because the other player wasn't at his best. You still believe that every match is on Federer's racquet.

 

[DarthFed]

The thing about you is that you are currently bitter as hell and are generalizing me. I don't always think Roger plays bad in losses and I don't usually say his opponents play well when he beats him. Hell, I mentioned a bunch of times after the semi with Stan that Fed played quite poorly and Stan should've done better. But the Nishikori match was clearly a situation where both played really damn well. I will ask again, did you actually see the match? I said the same about the Nadal-Dimitrov match ( very well played by both) even though I didn't like the result.