Will Novak pass Rafa?

[Bonaca]

name calling yeah bonehead? Djoker got beat fair and square, so what is that 'he would have won' crap coming from? oh you mean he never lost? all losses he would have 'won'.....bla bla bla, according to Djoker diehards, there is no need to play a match, just hand over trophies to Djoker so he can have the 'never lose' legacy because that's all your argument is about.

It's not 'that simple' what? so what else? it was a tennis match, and he got beat.....even at AO, he started to delay Thiem's rhythm just so the younger player would drop his level.....a lot of people didn't like it and basically it's a form of cheating. Essentially we are looking at a 'champ who cheated'.

I never said he wasn't fair beaten. Also it is not about every loss genius.
I was talking about 3 matches,circumstances and the level he played. Not every match he lost, so what are you talking about Retardo?
It is only my opinion, a subjective one yes, but whose isn't? Yours?

 

[Ricardo]

I never said he wasn't fair beaten. Also it is not about every loss genius.
I was talking about 3 matches,circumstances and the level he played. Not every match he lost, so what are you talking about Retardo?
It is only my opinion, a subjective one yes, but whose isn't? Yours?

circumstance and level? since when is that excuse enough to put an asterisk to a match? if you want to play that game, anyone can apply that to every match that's ever played. So Fed lost to Djoker at AO, he gassed out with injury so his level was low (which is actually true) therefore he 'could've won'....or Thiem got tight when he was leading, his level dropped, otherwise he would have won too...…..name me a match that we can't excuse a win or loss.

your opinion is not just subjective, it's plain stupid and ignorant.....what else can one expect from you anyway?

 

[Bonaca]

circumstance and level? since when is that excuse enough to put an asterisk to a match? if you want to play that game, anyone can apply that to every match that's ever played. So Fed lost to Djoker at AO, he gassed out with injury so his level was low (which is actually true) therefore he 'could've won'....or Thiem got tight when he was leading, his level dropped, otherwise he would have won too...…..name me a match that we can't excuse a win or loss.

your opinion is not just subjective, it's plain stupid and ignorant.....what else can one expect from you anyway?

Retardo, i was asked why i think Thiem is no favorite. Jelenafan mentioned their matches on clay, i answered why.
Not so difficult to understand genius.
these are no excuses, excuses for what? Why should i excuse anything i didnt cause?
We are sharing opinions and thoughts, you got that Retardo?

 

[kskate2]

@Ricardo and @Bonaca
You are both intelligent adults. Please act like it. Debate the post and not the poster. That means no name calling in the public forum.

 

[Ricardo]

@Ricardo and @Bonaca
You are both intelligent adults. Please act like it. Debate the post and not the poster. That means no name calling in the public forum.

noted, he started it but I am fine.

 

[Ricardo]

Retardo, i was asked why i think Thiem is no favorite. Jelenafan mentioned their matches on clay, i answered why.
Not so difficult to understand genius.
these are no excuses, excuses for what? Why should i excuse anything i didnt cause?
We are sharing opinions and thoughts, you got that Retardo?

you excuse all his losses so it doesn't hurt your feelings, those very soft feelings of yours......when idolising becomes an obsession.

come again, when he lost his 'level' wasn't high, or playing condition wasn't great etc etc, so nothing can be legit. We can say the same about every players' loss since last century. just look how ridiculous and stupid all this is.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Someone not playing well is never an excuse, even if they play well below their levels, unless there's a reason that's beyond their control. If you don't play good enough, you simply got outplayed, even if it's not all about your opponent's level of play. Yeah, Novak wasn't at his best in that Thiem match, but that was the semi final of RG against the second best clay courter over the last few years, so how bad could he have been playing really for it to go five?

 

[the AntiPusher]

When are tennis players ever injury-free? In 2008 Nadal lost to Ferrero in Rome partially because of blisters. Then he went on to that BS win over Federer in Hamburg the following week where Federer blew a 5-1 lead in the first set.

Players in their twenties deal with injuries and pains too. It's not just Novak Djokovic at the 2019 US Open who has ever gotten injured.



The reason I am limiting the criteria is that we are talking about only 4 events per year where the matches are played over 5 sets. Being able to give Djokovic a little bit of trouble at a Masters event is totally different than beating him at a Slam (look at Bautista-Agut).



I am not merely "acting" that way. I am saying emphatically that Djokovic has no reason to worry about the dynamic at Slams changing in the next 5 years barring the rise of a player we haven't yet seen.

I was the only person on this board saying that 5-7 years ago, and look at where we are now - with the same Big 3 that there was at the time. Who was the only person on this board who foresaw that? The poster whose message you are reading right now.



That would be unrealistic for Nadal, but Djokovic is a better all-around player than Nadal. So the same standards don't apply to each.



What does that mean exactly? Losing in the 4th round instead of the 2nd or 3rd round?

What reason do you have to believe that any of them will be consistently making the quarters or semis tournament after tournament?



Yes, and I have told you that's just your wishful thinking at work and that it is too nebulous to mean anything. Your posterboy for this change in the tennis landscape was Tsitsipas, whose victory over Djokovic in Shanghai you were utterly ecstatic about. What has ensued since? He has gotten trounced by Djokovic in Paris and flamed out early to Raonic in Melbourne.

That's a classic example of your nebulous generalities collapsing when you look at the specifics.



Yes, the guy who got pounded by Djokovic in Paris and then flamed out in the 3rd round of Melbourne right after you hyped him up.



That is one possible interpretation of your nebulous statements such as "My point about the Next Gen hasn't been so much about the one particular breakout, but that the onslaught will cause more upsets over time."

If we are talking about Slams specifically, that is a meaningless prediction without bringing up specific players who can trouble Djokovic over 5 sets at particular events.

It's just a question not a debate, is Cali saying he was the only one saying that the big 3 would dominate for the next 5 years ? If that is true..I would challenge him because no one has been more consistent with saying especially if all "conditions remain and are TRUE", it will always be Rafa, Roger and Novak..(El Dude or GSM can probably fact check it but I know I haven't deviated from that stance )

 

[the AntiPusher]

Retardo, i was asked why i think Thiem is no favorite. Jelenafan mentioned their matches on clay, i answered why.
Not so difficult to understand genius.
these are no excuses, excuses for what? Why should i excuse anything i didnt cause?
We are sharing opinions and thoughts, you got that Retardo?

I tried to show this board years ago that Ricardo is full of BS and vice versa.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I tried to show this board years ago that Ricardo is full of BS and vice versa.

This post is unintentionally hilarious.

"And vice versa." LMAO. Well, I can't say I don't agree with that part.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Novak will never be able to pass Rafa, and that goes for both slams and beauty.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Novak will never be able to pass Rafa, and that goes for both slams and beauty.

IDK..that non clay H2H is very prevalent...Rafa has got to abandon standing so far behind the baseline especially against Novak and Roger's services. Roger's service is one of the all time best but Novak's serve is good but it's not something to stay up late worrying about ..All Rafa has to do is block it back deep inside the center of the court to force Novak to create his own angles...I guess it's far easier said than done for Rafa.IMO

 

[the AntiPusher]

Read this . This poster was spot on about Novak..I know this isn't going to change opinions in the minds of the fans of the Big 3 but these are some of the reasons why Novak may never be the "Beloved One".

 

[Bonaca]

Read this . This poster was spot on about Novak..I know this isn't going to change opinions in the minds of the fans of the Big 3 but these are some of the reasons why Novak may never be the "Beloved One".

You are right , he will never be „loved“ like the other two.I never understood why he should.
But The reason for that is not what you wrote.
For me it’s one of the reasons why I root for him.
If you ask me , it’s like good old Paul Newman said: Won money is sweeter than earned money!
It couldn’t be sweeter to beat the opponent in a big final and spit these fucking crowds in the face. Best answer possible from him. I’m bit sorry for Roger, but the win at Wimbledon last year was special because of the crowd.

 

[Bonaca]

you excuse all his losses so it doesn't hurt your feelings, those very soft feelings of yours......when idolising becomes an obsession.

come again, when he lost his 'level' wasn't high, or playing condition wasn't great etc etc, so nothing can be legit. We can say the same about every players' loss since last century. just look how ridiculous and stupid all this is.

In the end it really seems to be too complicated for you to understand. Nothing else to be expected.
You are really talented to concentrate so much bullshit in so few words.

Again what all losses? What excuse? You know the meaning of the word idol?
Where did. I wrote his losses weren’t legit?

 

[Ricardo]

In the end it really seems to be too complicated for you to understand. Nothing else to be expected.
You are really talented to concentrate so much bullshit in so few words.

Again what all losses? What excuse? You know the meaning of the word idol?
Where did. I wrote his losses weren’t legit?

So who gives a shit if his level wasn’t ‘high’ or condition wasn’t ‘normal’? Or it wasnt full moon and Djoker hit puberty?
You are just embarrassed that your bs got exposed...go cry to your mama, whipping boy!

 

[Ricardo]

I tried to show this board years ago that Ricardo is full of BS and vice versa.

Full of shit like when you say Bill gates queued up for your speech? Oh yeah he probably licked your toe too.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Even if Rafa has an extremely excellent Spring tennis season record, He will still be the #3 seed behind Federer at Wimbledon even though Roger's ranking will probably dropped to #5 on the ATP tour.

 

[El Dude]

As has been said before, we have to adjust probabilities after each Slam, but RG is particularly important. Rafa buys himself some breathing room by winning, but if Novak wins, not only does he narrow the gap, but he takes away Rafa's easiest Slam for a year. If neither wins, I think it helps Novak slightly because Rafa needs RG more than Novak does.

 

[Ricardo]

Expected number of slams to be won over the year, 2 for Djoker, 1 for Rafa and 0.01 for Fed. Djoker already got one, Rafa has everything to lose if he doesn’t bag RG.....and Thiem is only getting stronger