Will Novak pass Rafa?

[calitennis127]

Basically, because of the definition of "fluke." You like to reinvent the definition of words, ("collapse" comes to mind, as a recent example,) but I really don't understand how you can insist that Roger beating Nadal in '07 and '11 were likely to the point of them being finals he "should" have won, beating Nadal in those matches, when you say that he only won in '09 because Nadal was absent. I.e., that he wouldn't have beaten Nadal that year, in a match that wasn't played.

You really are a creature of feeble reason. There is no contradiction at all here. I never said that Federer beating Nadal in 2007 or 2011 was "likely." That would have to be a prediction and I never went into those matches thinking that a Federer victory was "likely." I thought of them as highly possible if he played well, and that is a big difference from saying it was "likely."

For the record, if Federer had played Nadal in 2009, I believe it probably would have been very similar to 2007 and 2011 in that Federer would have won a set and dominated dozens of rallies only to give up leads, fail on breakpoints, and ultimately lose in 4 sets.

Also because, as I said above, Federer winning that tournament once Nadal was out was the expected outcome. The "fluke" would have been if Haas, who had a MP v. Roger in their match, had actually beaten him and gone on to win RG that year. Try to be more careful with your use of words.

Okay, Ms. Creature of Feeble Reason, let's operate off of dictionary.com definitions if you wish. Fluke: 1) an accidental advantage or stroke of good luck, 2) an accident or chance happening.

Based on those definitions, Nadal losing before the final was a "fluke" (definition #1), while Federer winning the entire tournament was also a fluke (definition #2). Words have different renderings at times. This is one of those examples.

I would say they fit in the same category vis-à-vis Nadal at RG in that, in their times, they have each been the 2nd best player on clay in many matches against him there, and, no matter how close Djokovic got, he only beat Nadal there in a very reduced form.

But Djokovic got much closer than Federer did to beating Nadal and that is a big difference. Djokovic was 10 minutes away from beating Nadal at Roland Garros in both 2013 and 2014. Federer never got that close.

Each was only able to win that title when he wasn't there to be played.

Djokovic absolutely kicked Nadal's ass in the 2015 quarterfinal so applying that argument to him makes no sense. Djokovic did get through Nadal that year and his loss to Wawrinka had nothing to do with Nadal.

You can try making that vastly different, but it really isn't.

It is vastly different. Djokovic got much closer to beating Nadal at Roland Garros on multiple occasions and his overall clay record against Nadal is far better than Federer's. You are lumping them together because you always prefer vague generalities.

 

[Jelenafan]

Certainly not this year.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic absolutely kicked Nadal's ass in the 2015 quarterfinal so applying that argument to him makes no sense. Djokovic did get through Nadal that year and his loss to Wawrinka had nothing to do with Nadal.

I've reminded you before that in real time after that 2015 QF, you kept trying to tell anyone who would listen that that match was closer than people think and there was nothing wrong with Rafa's game. And I've provide evidence of it. You've completely changed your tune on that match.

 

[calitennis127]

I've reminded you before that in real time after that 2015 QF, you kept trying to tell anyone who would listen that that match was closer than people think and there was nothing wrong with Rafa's game. And I've provide evidence of it. You've completely changed your tune on that match.

Djokovic kicked his ass on the scoreline in terms of winning in straight sets, which is all that everyone is referring to here in what is essentially a W-L debate.

Now was the match more competitive tennis-wise than everyone made it out to be? Yes, of course. I stand by that view.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yes, and Nadal has only as many Australian Opens as Djokovic does French Opens. Explain that. Oh right, the Australian Open doesn't matter when evaluating Nadal because it is just a mulligan for the other hardcourt Slam.

Regarding Nadal's US Open wins: it's not my fault that Djokovic and Medvedev could not close him out or that Federer shit the bed against Delpo in the 2017 quarterfinal and Dimitrov last year. Djokovic missing a simple CC backhand to go up double break against Nadal in the 3rd set of the 2013 final is not something you should be banging your chest about.

Lol as if Nadal didn’t have his chances against “lucky” Djokovic at for example 2012 AO or 2018 WB that were both way more closer than 2013 USO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....what do you want me to do? List all 45 reasons for why Nadal has more US Open wins than Djokovic does? We have gone over those many times. The gnat took advantage of his opportunities while Djokovic and Federer severely underachieved.

That is the essence of it. And you know (unlike clueless Moxie) that at the start of the 3rd set in the 2013 final Djokovic was in complete and total control and was bitching Nadal around the court, with far more forehand winners than your Mr. Forehand was producing. Djokovic was the better player and lost. But you have to give Nadal credit. He has his petty way of pulling out matches even when he is getting owned. I will admit that only Nadal possesses the pettiness to win a match in which he is outhit in winners 59 to 13 (like what happened in Rome against Gulbis). That is a unique gnat talent.

Novak was in complete control of the SET, not the match. The match was tied one set apiece with Nadal having absolutely destroyed him in the first set (it was legit embarrassing), Novak taking the second, and yes, looking like the better player throughout the third. Nadal miracled it (no denying that) and again, absolutely clobbered him in the 4th. Now yes, the 4th was more about momentum, but there's no way anyone who watched that match can just claim Novak was the better player throughout. He wasn't. Not when he got his ass completely handed to him in 2 out of the 4 sets.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic absolutely kicked Nadal's ass in the 2015 quarterfinal so applying that argument to him makes no sense. Djokovic did get through Nadal that year and his loss to Wawrinka had nothing to do with Nadal.

You literally made threads and endless posts about how that match was closer than the straight set nature indicates as a response to anyone saying Nadal was way below his best that year. Now it's he got his ass absolutely kicked.

Please spare me the tapdancing. Ignore it like you ignore every post that highlights how full of shit you are.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic kicked his ass on the scoreline in terms of winning in straight sets, which is all that everyone is referring to here in what is essentially a W-L debate.

Now was the match more competitive tennis-wise than everyone made it out to be? Yes, of course. I stand by that view.

Ahhhhh so now straight sets = kicked his ass, but when it suits you, you use sets that Nadal won 7-5 (ie US Open 2010 against some tomato can) to highlight how he wasn't dominant even though he made it to the final without dropping a set.

It's 2020. You've been on the forums for 11 years. Your posts are still so filled with logical holes and biases that a 9 year old (who in fairness, would have a higher IQ than a lot of posters here) can still pick them apart.

 

[Moxie]

Novak was in complete control of the SET, not the match. The match was tied one set apiece with Nadal having absolutely destroyed him in the first set (it was legit embarrassing), Novak taking the second, and yes, looking like the better player throughout the third. Nadal miracled it (no denying that) and again, absolutely clobbered him in the 4th. Now yes, the 4th was more about momentum, but there's no way anyone who watched that match can just claim Novak was the better player throughout. He wasn't. Not when he got his ass completely handed to him in 2 out of the 4 sets.

I don't know if it's just that Cali hasn't watched that match again, or he's just willfully refusing to admit how good Nadal played in it, but I rewatched these extended highlights. Of course, Cali never mentions the first set. And even in the set + where Novak was dominating, it's worth watching to note how close Rafa keeps it, which is why he could seize his opportunity in the 3rd. In any case, since there's no tennis to watch at the moment, this match does have a lot of great tennis in it, and is worth a revisit.

 

[El Dude]

I remember watching that match and just being awed by the level of both players.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I don't know if it's just that Cali hasn't watched that match again, or he's just willfully refusing to admit how good Nadal played in it, but I rewatched these extended highlights. Of course, Cali never mentions the first set. And even in the set + where Novak was dominating, it's worth watching to note how close Rafa keeps it, which is why he could seize his opportunity in the 3rd. In any case, since there's no tennis to watch at the moment, this match does have a lot of great tennis in it, and is worth a revisit.

This was truly an incredible match. Nadal also beat Djokovic a couple of weeks earlier in Montreal proving that the USO win was not a fluke. Nadal was undefeated during that whole hardcourt summer.

That’s a great recommendation for a match to watch! And I’d like to add that Nadal matches are always great, not only due to his incredible tennis but also due to his stunning superior physical beauty.

Spoiler

 

[Moxie]

I remember watching that match and just being awed by the level of both players.

It's a really good match. But that's why it gets so tedious when Cali can't see the match for what it was. He keeps trying to reinvent the match based on Djokovic's HC resume, insisting that he "should" have won. There is an old saw that Nadal detractors hold onto, which is that Nadal just bats the ball back and waits for errors. I say watch that match and try to hang onto that idea. He just was the better player on the day. For sure Rafa ripped the cloth out from under Djokovic's carefully laid table in the 3rd, but hey, that's tennis.

 

[the AntiPusher]

After watching 2014 RG final..Rafa put a ton a pressure on Novak's service game after the first set.. That's the blueprint going forward to defeat Novak.
During this worldwide medical sabbatical due to the Covid-19 virus.

1. Rafa should have an improvement in his service.. Especially the speed of his body serves.
2. Commit to moving forward and taking control of the center of the court and the net.
3. Shorten the rallies..

If he can execute successfully in these 3 areas..
Then No. Novak may not pass Rafa.

 

[Moxie]

After watching 2014 RG final..Rafa put a ton a pressure on Novak's service game after the first set.. That's the blueprint going forward to defeat Novak.
During this worldwide medical sabbatical due to the Covid-19 virus.

1. Rafa should have an improvement in his service.. Especially the speed of his body serves.
2. Commit to moving forward and taking control of the center of the court and the net.
3. Shorten the rallies..

If he can execute successfully in these 3 areas..
Then No. Novak may not pass Rafa.

Rafa always works on his serve, but good point about body.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger lost the most as Wimbledon is cancelled.

Rafa can still hold hopes that RG will materialize.

Novak gained the most considering that USO is more likely to happen than not.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Why i

Roger lost the most as Wimbledon is cancelled.

Rafa can still hold hopes that RG will materialize.

Novak gained the most considering that USO is more likely to happen than not.

why is do you have Novak listed as the favorite..Rafa is the two time defending champion and has won the title more times than Novak..correct

 

[Moxie]

Roger lost the most as Wimbledon is cancelled.

Rafa can still hold hopes that RG will materialize.

Novak gained the most considering that USO is more likely to happen than not.

Definitely Roger lost the most with the cancellation of Wimbledon. It's his best chance at another Major, and he'll be 39 when it's played next year. But Djokovic lost a lot by it being cancelled, as he'd have been the favorite. IF (Big if) USO and RG are played this year, Rafa is the defending champion of both. It's not a logical conclusion that Djokovic gains the most in this equation. Djokovic might win the USO, if it's played, but he's won it fewer times than Nadal, and has lost to Nadal there, even in his prime. The most likely to happen is RG, since it's scheduled for later even than the USO, and you know who's favored there. The question might be if they actually do play both, and only a few weeks apart. Would Djokovic throw everything at the USO, and Nadal hold something back for the French? Of the two, it has to be noted, only Nadal has won the Channel Slam, which is otherwise the closest two Slams are held together. So, advantage Nadal.

 

[calitennis127]

You literally made threads and endless posts about how that match was closer than the straight set nature indicates as a response to anyone saying Nadal was way below his best that year. Now it's he got his ass absolutely kicked.

There's this concept of context you may want to look up and do some research on. I said that Djokovic kicked Nadal's ass in response to Moxie saying that Federer and Djokovic only won French Opens when they didn't have to go through Nadal. So I pointed out that even though Djokovic did not win the tournament in 2015, he still beat Nadal.

The tenor of this conversation has been about bottom-line results. In that vein, yes, Djokovic's victory in 2015 over Nadal was resounding.

Now, if you're talking about actual level, I told everyone (people who were both pro-Nadal and anti-Nadal) in 2015 that his level had not dropped that much and that talks of his demise were premature. What has occurred since has proven that absolutely right.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't know if it's just that Cali hasn't watched that match again, or he's just willfully refusing to admit how good Nadal played in it, but I rewatched these extended highlights. Of course, Cali never mentions the first set. And even in the set + where Novak was dominating, it's worth watching to note how close Rafa keeps it, which is why he could seize his opportunity in the 3rd.

Djokovic completely squandered the break point to go up double break to 3-0. Had he gone up two breaks the likelihood of Nadal winning the set would have been close to zero.

 

[calitennis127]

Ahhhhh so now straight sets = kicked his ass, but when it suits you, you use sets that Nadal won 7-5 (ie US Open 2010 against some tomato can) to highlight how he wasn't dominant even though he made it to the final without dropping a set.

If you are looking strictly at the scoreline of their 2015 Roland Garros match, Djokovic kicked Nadal's ass. If you look at the level of play, particularly in the first and second sets, it was not a completely dominant performance by Djokovic. This is completely consistent with my comments about Federer-Nadal matches on clay; I have said many times that the level was very close, but Nadal pulled out key points. There is no inconsistency here. There is just some complexity that flies over your head.

But, if you want to compare scorelines from the matches you brought up, here you go:

Nadal v. Gabashvili, 2009 US Open: 7-6, 7-6, 6-3
Nadal v. Istomin, 2009 US Open: 6-2, 7-6, 7-5

Djokovic v. Nadal, 2015 Roland Garros: 7-5, 6-3, 6-1

What's the difference? The two Nadal victories were clearly much more complicated. In the Gabashvili match, in particular, Nadal genuinely struggled. It's not too often he goes to two tiebreaks in the first round of a Grand Slam.

It's 2020. You've been on the forums for 11 years. Your posts are still so filled with logical holes and biases that a 9 year old (who in fairness, would have a higher IQ than a lot of posters here) can still pick them apart.

It's 2020. You have been on the forums for at least 15 years. It's clear that you have less vocabulary at your disposal than a 9-year-old, and you equate any sort of complexity with logical fallacy. As I explained above, there was no logical fallacy in what I said. And of course what you call "bias" is simply anything you don't like the sound of.