Djokovic believes he is a big threat to Federer.
wkhedr
because I didn't get to the finals of a Grand Slam. But I'm slowly
getting to that experience," Djokovic said.
Giovanna
Patrick Kehoe
> Djokovic has absolutely no chance to beat roger here... none
++ I know you are a major fan of Fed, so am I, but Djokovic can beat
anyone on his day and he's proven that, though not yet at a GSF, but
all the elements are there and one suspects the players know it...
between Rafa, Djoko and Fed there is a razor thin line, it's just that
Fed can sustain more often and in fact that's what, in part, defines
true greatness... the ability to sustain your absolute best,
regardless of contingent factors again and again and again... that's
what Fed can do, does do...
The big factor tomorrow may be the heat! and air quality! Man, that is
going to have a bearing on the finals...
P
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
I agree with Giovanna. Djock would have to win in 3 and he is not good
enough to pull that off. In 4 or 5 Roger is just warmed up and
shifting to a high gear while Djock is struggling to catch his breath.
But, I don't think Djock will get by Ferrer. I see a Fed Ferrer final.
coop-a-loop
player, too.
But to me, it is rare to see the very best do things like this (those
videos). Most are totally focused - yes it probably makes them
"boring" - but that is why they succeed.
I cannot picture Sampras jumping & imitating Shara (or doing similar
things). If he did, I'm certain he'd have 13 fewer slams.
top winner in basketball: Bill Russell. For some reason, I cannot
vision his being an idiot? Or pounding his chest while screaming like
an idiot. Current winner: Tim Duncan. "boring" ... gee, that's
probably why they win?
X L
Federer since he trains in hot conditions to get ready for hot days like
this.
Richard Eich
> He has personality and belief. His videos are quite funny.
Somebody needs to do a vid exaggerating Djokovic's foibles: Taking
his shirt off three or four times and strutting around, and falling
to his knees are jerking himself off with both hands.
Scott
slam potential by marketing himself so much. for a while he was
ubiquitous, selling Canon cameras and other things.
early AA also dressed outrageously, which was another distraction.
in Djoker's favor, at least he's selling tennis, not a Buick or Canon.
Manuel Munoz
> "It's normal he still thinks I cannot be the biggest threat to him
> because I didn't get to the finals of a Grand Slam. But I'm slowly
> getting to that experience," Djokovic said.
>
He can, and he better have to believe so...
Not speaking of that odd italian job, who the fuck could
beat Federer without even thinking that he might defeat the
Swiss master?!?
Novak can several points to put in:
What he did in Montreal was simply fantastic.
I mean, not beating Federer, anyone can beat Federer once or
twice ;-) (or almost: you just have to be facing a highly:
unfocused / sick / old / ... Rodga!)
What was incredible was to defeat one after another the #3,
#2 & #1 in the world.
Last time anyone did that kind of stuff was 1996 or so.
Of course, Nole has no experience of GS final... Does that care?
True champions don't need many GS finals to get their name
on the trophy.
Of course Djokovic has way less "tennis" than Federer (in
fact nobody ever had more, so far), but Nadal has even less
than Novak, yet he won many times vs Fed, including gigantic
matches.
If there was no Nadal, I am pretty sure that Federer would
be on his way to a *second* or *third* CYGS!
I just can't see anyone else preventing Roger from the
French 06 & 07, if not 05...
That's how unreal Federer has turned from his first
Wimbledon trophy.
As most of "tier something" (to quote whiskey) analysts, I
think Federer will win versus Novak most of the time.
Yet I feel that Davydenko is a harder match, according to
what the brave Niko did at the French.
Ferrer, if he can keep the high level he has been playing so
far (very Agassi, in his good times) is -according to me-
also a bigger menace than Djokovic.
What is also almost clear to me, is that both Davydenko &
Ferrer are more subject to be intimidated by the situation,
the pressure of the big matches than Nole might be.
He definitly has that famous "lightness of youngsters"...
He seems to be taking all with a big smile, if not a big laugh.
He just might have charmed, hypnotized the public with its
latter imitator show during the interview...
I would root for someone that funny & outrageous, maybe even
if he plays *the* number one.
--
Share & Enjoy,
Manolo
wkhedr
nice post
Lax
Fed/Denko will start their match in the evening Saturday (will be
after 4pm by my prediction). I don't think they'll be affected as
much (compare the two semis from today). The final on Sunday is also
in the afternoon, so not a big deal.
I think Djokovic gets screwed big time by the noon start.
Lax
>
> > "It's normal he still thinks I cannot be the biggest threat to him
> > because I didn't get to the finals of a Grand Slam. But I'm slowly
> > getting to that experience," Djokovic said.
>
> He can, and he better have to believe so...
> Not speaking of that odd italian job, who the fuck could
> beat Federer without even thinking that he might defeat the
> Swiss master?!?
>
> Novak can several points to put in:
> What he did in Montreal was simply fantastic.
> I mean, not beating Federer, anyone can beat Federer once or
> twice ;-) (or almost: you just have to be facing a highly:
> unfocused / sick / old / ... Rodga!)
> What was incredible was to defeat one after another the #3,
> #2 & #1 in the world.
> Last time anyone did that kind of stuff was 1996 or so.
>
Don't put too much weight on his Montreal run. Roddick wasn't playing
as well as he did at this Open, and hung tough with Novak. Nadal was
coming off a layoff he took because of knee problems at Stuttgart.
Fed was clearly not in form (coming off a LONG layoff with some extra
weight).
I think Novak was just CLOSER to his peak for that tournament relative
to the other three. The Roddick that showed up at USO would have
killed THAT MONTREAL Novak, and would destroy the Novak that showed up
this open.
I think the Nadal that lost to Ferrer could have straight setted the
Novak of this open. This is why I think Ferrer will beat Novak
tomorrow.
Novak was playing near his 100% in Montreal while the other big boys
weren't ramped up yet. That's my opinion.
Carey
fwiw I think the Djoker has a very, very good shot at winning the
Whole Thing.
He will be a star, probably won't win a dozen Majors, but I wouldn't
be surprised
at half-a-dozen. And he is GREAT for tennis. Still hope Fed wins
this one though. :-)
Lax
>
> fwiw I think the Djoker has a very, very good shot at winning the
> Whole Thing.
> He will be a star, probably won't win a dozen Majors, but I wouldn't
> be surprised
> at half-a-dozen. And he is GREAT for tennis. Still hope Fed wins
> this one though.
>
Yes, he is good for tennis. But his form here has been terrible. And
he isn't dealing with the humid heat of New York very well (just like
past years). I just have a feeling that Ferrer is going to take him
to the cleaners.
I wonder why I haven't read any analysts' picks backing Ferrer.
Manuel Munoz
It's not me that's making a big stuff of the Montreal result.
That's legacy.
I don't give any consideration to your Roddick destroying
wannabe.
Roddick is out.
I don't care how badly he had played so far.
He only to play well for at most 10 sets.
He can as well reach the final playing poorly, that does not
matter.
What matters is that he plays well enough in the final to win.
Not even to play well, I said to play well enough: that
means just play a little better than the other guy.
Wich should be a *very* difficult thing if he had to play
Federer, or a FO07SF Davydenko.
Wich would be impossible if he was to play a totally focused
Federer.
You should not wonder why analysts won't pick up Ferrer.
You should not consider as analysts people making choice
according mostly to what they suppose to be the most
"fashionable" final. "fashionable" = easy to sell to TV
advertisers.
Whisper
>
> But, I don't think Djock will get by Ferrer. I see a Fed Ferrer final.
Not Hewitt?
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>
>> But, I don't think Djock will get by Ferrer. I see a Fed Ferrer final.
>
>
>Not Hewitt?
No he lost. Just like Nadal !
EFill4Zaggin
<newg...@xamigax.org> wrote:
>Of course Djokovic has way less "tennis" than Federer (in
>fact nobody ever had more, so far), but Nadal has even less
>than Novak, yet he won many times vs Fed, including gigantic
>matches.
>If there was no Nadal, I am pretty sure that Federer would
>be on his way to a *second* or *third* CYGS!
> I just can't see anyone else preventing Roger from the
>French 06 & 07, if not 05...
Maybe Djokovic can give Fed a hard time at FO next year? And could
Djokovic, with the 2h BH, be a sterner test for Nadal at the FO too?
alexneo
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:54:55 +0200, Manuel Munoz
>
On clay, I guess he won't be a stern test for either of them. Maybe in
a couple of years.
greg...@hotmail.com
> Fed/Denko will start their match in the evening Saturday (will be
> after 4pm by my prediction). I don't think they'll be affected as
> much (compare the two semis from today). The final on Sunday is also
> in the afternoon, so not a big deal.
>
> I think Djokovic gets screwed big time by the noon start.
Balanced by greater recovery time than that for the winner of the
second semi?
tenni...@yahoo.com
> wkhedr a écrit :
>
> > "It's normal he still thinks I cannot be the biggest threat to him
> > because I didn't get to the finals of a Grand Slam. But I'm slowly
> > getting to that experience," Djokovic said.
>
> He can, and he better have to believe so...
> Not speaking of that odd italian job, who the fuck could
> beat Federer without even thinking that he might defeat the
> Swiss master?!?
>
> Novak can several points to put in:
> What he did in Montreal was simply fantastic.
> I mean, not beating Federer, anyone can beat Federer once or
> twice ;-) (or almost: you just have to be facing a highly:
> unfocused / sick / old / ... Rodga!)
> What was incredible was to defeat one after another the #3,
> #2 & #1 in the world.
> Last time anyone did that kind of stuff was 1996 or so.
>
> Of course, Nole has no experience of GS final... Does that care?
> True champions don't need many GS finals to get their name
> on the trophy.
>
No that does not matter. It's the other way round. Winning the first
slam final is a sure sign of a champion. Nobody has gone on to become
a multi-slam champion after losing their first GS final except Lendl
and Agassi. We will find out if Djokovic is made of champion stuff
tomorrow. He certainly seems to have much more belief and hunger than
Baghdatis and Gonzo.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
coo...@sbcglobal.net (coop-a-loop) wrote:
> *From:* coop-a-loop <coo...@sbcglobal.net>
> *Date:* Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:28:14 -0700
>
> He has personality and belief. His videos are quite funny. Very good
> player, too.
>
> But to me, it is rare to see the very best do things like this (those
> videos). Most are totally focused - yes it probably makes them
> "boring" - but that is why they succeed.
>
> I cannot picture Sampras jumping & imitating Shara (or doing similar
> things). If he did, I'm certain he'd have 13 fewer slams.
>
You know, if Djokovic had done this before the match I might agree with
you, but *after* the match seems to me pretty harmless. Federer's won 11
Slams and yet still found time to blow an alphorn.
wg
Ted S.
> No that does not matter. It's the other way round. Winning the first
> slam final is a sure sign of a champion. Nobody has gone on to become
> a multi-slam champion after losing their first GS final except Lendl
> and Agassi.
This, of course, is only for the men's side. Hénin, Mauresmo, and Venus
Williams all lost their first Slam finals.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova