When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
applauding points).
Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
than that.
Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote: > When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> applauding points).
Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> than that.
Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> > dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> > wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> > all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> > hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> > knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> > enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> > applauding points).
> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> > Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> > than that.
> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
outstanding.
> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> > > dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> > > wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> > > all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> > > hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> > > knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> > > enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> > > applauding points).
> > Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> > > Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> > > than that.
> > Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
> outstanding.
only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> > > > dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> > > > wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> > > > all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> > > > hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> > > > knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> > > > enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> > > > applauding points).
> > > Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> > > > Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> > > > than that.
> > > Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> > It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
> > not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
> > regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
> > the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
> > outstanding.
> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
He is dominating just enough but he should be doing more because who
is his competition? A 31 year old Federer who is half of what he used
to be in his very prime and a Nadal who has been absent from the tour
for half the year? Djokovic should be winning every single tournament
he enters the way Federer did for three or four straight years. He
went from the AO this year and did not win a tournament until Miami
and then not another until Toronto. Nadal reasserted his dominance on
clay and defeated Djokovic at the FO. Federer at 31, defeated Djokovic
at Wimbledon and took the number one from him and Andy Murray defeated
him at the Olympics. That is not true domination. Djokovic did however
start to do well again from the Asian swing to the YEC. If he was
doing that all year, that would be true domination.
> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> > > > dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> > > > wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> > > > all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> > > > hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> > > > knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> > > > enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> > > > applauding points).
> > > Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> > > > Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> > > > than that.
> > > Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> > It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
> > not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
> > regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
> > the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
> > outstanding.
> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
Take your complaint to Vlado, slowpoke. He's the only complaining that
Djokovic is not dominating.
> On Nov 13, 11:37 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
>>>>> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
>>>>> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
>>>>> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
>>>>> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
>>>>> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
>>>>> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
>>>>> applauding points).
>>>> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
>>>>> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
>>>>> than that.
>>>> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
>>> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
>>> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
>>> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
>>> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
>>> outstanding.
>> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
> He is dominating just enough but he should be doing more because who
> is his competition?
> On Nov 13, 11:37 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
>>>>> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
>>>>> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
>>>>> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
>>>>> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
>>>>> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
>>>>> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
>>>>> applauding points).
>>>> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
>>>>> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
>>>>> than that.
>>>> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
>>> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
>>> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
>>> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
>>> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
>>> outstanding.
>> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
> Take your complaint to Vlado, slowpoke. He's the only complaining that
> Djokovic is not dominating.
And courtsie too. Says that Nadal, Federer and Murray are not tough competition and Nole should win "every tournament like Roger did".
> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> applauding points).
> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> than that.
Calm down big fella. He barely beat Murray 46 63 75 & this 76 75 win over old Fed was as hard as it gets for a straight sets win. He didn't blow away these guys 62 61, which he needed to do to match your comments.
> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> applauding points).
> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> than that.
This is particularly a backwater, hick question that comes from a mindset used to totalitarian treatment but without being informed by having even been in a position of dominating anything other than, perhaps, the occasional prostitute, naive and desperate enough to have taken up with the person asking the question. "To dominate," to this genocidal, Nazi bigot, means, cartoonishly, "to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentation of their women."
It's what an abject loser dreams *he* would do if only he were the Serbian quitter.
> > On Nov 13, 11:37 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> >>>>> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> >>>>> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> >>>>> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> >>>>> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> >>>>> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> >>>>> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> >>>>> applauding points).
> >>>> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> >>>>> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> >>>>> than that.
> >>>> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> >>> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
> >>> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
> >>> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
> >>> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
> >>> outstanding.
> >> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
> > He is dominating just enough but he should be doing more because who
> > is his competition?
> 3 really really poor players.
According to you Federer is a poor player. Fed is 31, Djokovic should
be dismantling Federer in every match, but that is far from the case
isn't it?
> > On Nov 13, 11:37 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
> >>>>> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
> >>>>> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
> >>>>> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
> >>>>> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
> >>>>> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
> >>>>> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
> >>>>> applauding points).
> >>>> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
> >>>>> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
> >>>>> than that.
> >>>> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
> >>> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
> >>> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
> >>> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
> >>> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
> >>> outstanding.
> >> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
> > Take your complaint to Vlado, slowpoke. He's the only complaining that
> > Djokovic is not dominating.
> And courtsie too. Says that Nadal, Federer and Murray are not tough
> competition and Nole should win "every tournament like Roger did".
I didn't say Nadal, Federer and Murray are not tough competition, I
said Federer is 31 and past his expiration date, Nadal has had his
troubles and has been away from the game and Murray has been erratic.
Djokovic should be dominating a lot more given those circumstances.
> On Nov 13, 1:50 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 13.11.2012 18:59, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Nov 13, 11:37 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 13, 9:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Vlado<vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> When he is focused, his game can't be matched but yet he is still not
>>>>>>> dominating. Obviously he is not a robot and he has other interests and
>>>>>>> wants to be on friendly terms so tennis is thankfully not on his mind
>>>>>>> all the time. Or maybe it's just a subconcious way of making him more
>>>>>>> hungrier later on but he does lose matches on commission bases and he
>>>>>>> knows losing is part of the game. Or maybe he likes the game more than
>>>>>>> enough and doesn't want to dominate it that way (thinking of his
>>>>>>> applauding points).
>>>>>> Or maybe, just maybe..... maybe he's not as good as you think.
>>>>>>> Anyway, maybe dominating the game is overrated and there is more to it
>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>> Dominating a sport is overrated? Now that's a bold claim. :)
>>>>> It's classic sour grapes. If you can't dominate, then dominating must
>>>>> not be worthwhile. That said, however, I see nothing to complain about
>>>>> regarding the Djoker's level of success. Two years in a row of being
>>>>> the best player in the game, even with "only" four total slams (!), is
>>>>> outstanding.
>>>> only four total slams? year end number 1 = not dominating?
>>> He is dominating just enough but he should be doing more because who
>>> is his competition?
