Can the BOAT turn into a GOAT?

[Pelle Svanslös]

And how soon? By Wimbledon 2017? Hmmm ...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/11/novak-djokovic-monte-carlo-paris-french-open-murray-federer-nadal

--
“Hiss first. Listen later."

[Whisper]

On 13/04/2016 3:40 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> And how soon? By Wimbledon 2017? Hmmm ...
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/11/novak-djokovic-monte-carlo-paris-french-open-murray-federer-nadal
>
>

He's not absolute all time boat, but has some good arguments for his era.

I think he will have strong goat claims by September if he sweeps the
calendar slam.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 13.4.2016 13:42, Whisper wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 3:40 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> And how soon? By Wimbledon 2017? Hmmm ...
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/11/novak-djokovic-monte-carlo-paris-french-open-murray-federer-nadal
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> He's not absolute all time boat, but has some good arguments for his era.

Just the other day, Robin Söderling jumps on the bandwagon and says
Novak plays the best he's ever seen anybody play.

There's a lot of folks trying to fit in now.

[bob]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:34:14 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:

as a total package, djok is playing an an extremely high level. i
don't think his game is pretty, but his strengths are many:
1-fitness, athleticism, speed
2-return
3-BH
4-Serve
5-FH

his net game isn't great by any means but the combo of those i listed
puts him pretty high overall. especially #1 above, it's won him a lot
of matches he would've lost on skill alone.

he's IMO undoubtedly the fittest in history, maybe rafa/lendl just
behind him there.

bob

[Whisper]

This happens in every era so no reason to give this era preference over
all past & future eras - it's just a constant in all sports. Most
people think 'ceibs' - current era is best ever. The fact it's not a
constant means it's false in every era except one. None of us can know
which era is actually best ever. We all have opinions so they all
cancel each other out.

The best any great player can hope for is to dominate their own era &
win as many slams as they can (7543).

If Fed/Rafa played in Laver era they may have never won a single slam
(small wood rackets, dodgy grass courts, premium on net skills etc), &
Laver may not have won one in this era. It all cancels out.

[Guypers]

No, Laver, Fed, Sampras, Borg, Mac even Novak would dominate in any era, Rafa needs the big racket and strings for his rpm!

[bob]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:47:44 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

very reasonable and logical statement. that's 1 of the reasons when we
try to compare cross eras, futile as it may be, i try to use
historically averged surfaces (i.e. how surfaces have played for the
majority of tennis history), not what we have past 10yrs. same could
apply to fitness techniques, equipment, etc.

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 13.4.2016 15:47, Whisper wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 10:34 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 13.4.2016 13:42, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 3:40 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>>> And how soon? By Wimbledon 2017? Hmmm ...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/11/novak-djokovic-monte-carlo-paris-french-open-murray-federer-nadal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He's not absolute all time boat, but has some good arguments for his
>>> era.
>>
>> Just the other day, Robin Söderling jumps on the bandwagon and says
>> Novak plays the best he's ever seen anybody play.
>>
>> There's a lot of folks trying to fit in now.
>
>
> This happens in every era so no reason to give this era preference

There are a few. Physical, technical, numbers. You were a ceibs advocate
yourself a few years back.

>
> The best any great player can hope for is to dominate their own era &
> win as many slams as they can (7543).

Sure sure sure.

>
> If Fed/Rafa played in Laver era they may have never won a single slam
> (small wood rackets, dodgy grass courts, premium on net skills etc), &
> Laver may not have won one in this era. It all cancels out.

If Borg won 5, there's no reason to think Rafa would of not taken any.
If you know how to drive a car, you know how to drive em all. Wooden
racquets are just Chryslers of the racquet world. You can use everything
you learned on a Ferrari with that Chrysler, you just gotta be careful
in the bends. A track pro adapts to a Chrysler in 5 days and beats the
rest of the Chrysler drivers.

Laver and the rest of the Aussies of that period, OTOH, had the bells
tolling for them, no matter what. Once the game opened up and people
with groundies entered the fray, it was game, set, Mats for them.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 6:42:38 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:


> I think he will have strong goat claims by September if he sweeps the
> calendar slam.

Hopefully he'll lose the FO yet again and we can move on from all of this possible Djokovic is GOAT talk. He's six slams away from the slam record and 130 weeks away from the weeks @ # 1 record. He's got work to do yet.

[Court_1]

Soderling also said Djokovic is not a natural clay court player and if he is going to lose anywhere it will be on clay. He nailed that one.

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Oh really?!! He is not natural clay court player, but he wins most
of the clay masters last year and reaches many FO finals, what an
amazing analysis by Soderling , lol.

Djokovic showed signs in the last two HC tournaments that he
getting more tired day by day. Winning everyday and coming very
focused on every point takes a big toll on the player and his
mental focus. When it happens it becomes difficult to get out of
it. A long break can help but it's difficult to erase specially
for a player that grinds every point, game and match.
Ask nadal.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:

>
> Oh really?!! He is not natural clay court player, but he wins most
> of the clay masters last year and reaches many FO finals, what an
> amazing analysis by Soderling , lol.
>
> Djokovic showed signs in the last two HC tournaments that he
> getting more tired day by day. Winning everyday and coming very
> focused on every point takes a big toll on the player and his
> mental focus. When it happens it becomes difficult to get out of
> it. A long break can help but it's difficult to erase specially
> for a player that grinds every point, game and match.
> Ask nadal.
> --

What you say is true for counter-punchers in general, but I think Djok has a better serve than Nadal, wins a little more free points off of it. That should probably help him. I think he can hang in a little more longer than Nadal.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:48:30 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

> > Soderling also said Djokovic is not a natural clay court player and if he is going to lose anywhere it will be on clay. He nailed that one.
> >
>
> Oh really?!! He is not natural clay court player, but he wins most
> of the clay masters last year and reaches many FO finals, what an
> amazing analysis by Soderling , lol.

Djokovic is not a natural clay court player. Soderling is 100% right. He's reaching clay finals because the conditions are more homogenous and because the competition on clay is dire. Outside of some of the Spaniards, most of the players are not natural clay court players. Currently I think clay is Djokovic's weakest surface. I think if you look at his stats such as returning stats, they are weakest on clay.

> Djokovic showed signs in the last two HC tournaments that he
> getting more tired day by day. Winning everyday and coming very
> focused on every point takes a big toll on the player and his
> mental focus. When it happens it becomes difficult to get out of
> it. A long break can help but it's difficult to erase specially
> for a player that grinds every point, game and match.
> Ask nadal.

Well this is true but I'm not sure one loss at a clay tune-up indicates trouble for Djokovic. If he starts losing at more Masters 1000s and ultimately at the slams, then we can say he is in a downward phase.

I hope Nadal can make a comeback because this no competition for Djokovic is boring. We need rivalries. At least the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry was somewhat interesting before 2014.

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

So djokovic is not a natural clay player but this loss does not
indicate any troubles, I see.

In other words, he will continue to dominate on clay but he was
due to lose one match because clay isn't his natural
game.

Got it.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 13.4.2016 23:24, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:48:30 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky
> wrote:
>
>>> Soderling also said Djokovic is not a natural clay court player
>>> and if he is going to lose anywhere it will be on clay. He nailed
>>> that one.
>>>
>>
>> Oh really?!! He is not natural clay court player, but he wins most
>> of the clay masters last year and reaches many FO finals, what an
>> amazing analysis by Soderling , lol.
>
> Djokovic is not a natural clay court player. Soderling is 100% right.

So what does Söderling mean by that? You can't escape the fact that Djok
has one of the best win percentages on clay, ever. Better than any of
the 90s "specialists" up to and including Guga.

> He's reaching clay finals because the conditions are more homogenous
> and because the competition on clay is dire. Outside of some of the
> Spaniards,

Which happen to include Rafa.

> most of the players are not natural clay court players.

What does that mean? Rogi, for instance has a strong clay background.
Most Europeans have.

That Rogi is better on other surfaces does not mean he is "un-natural".

I suspect you're again painting by numbers.

> Currently I think clay is Djokovic's weakest surface. I think if you
> look at his stats such as returning stats, they are weakest on clay.

Why not just take a look at them? Then you don't have to "think".

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Court_1 Wrote in message:

WTF are you rambling on about? Djokovic is not a natural clay court player. He's much more comfortable on hc. Check his clay stats and you will see he has worsened there compared to on other surfaces(i.e. return stats.) If he were going to lose somewhere, clay would be the most logical place. He lost early at a clay tune-up. It's not time to write the obituaries yet as much as I'd like to. If he starts losing the next few tournaments and then loses the FO and W and the USO, then we can start talking.

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

So who are the natural clay players that have better clay stats
than djokovic's since his full domination started?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 13.4.2016 23:47, Court_1 wrote:
> WTF are you rambling on about? Djokovic is not a natural clay court
> player. He's much more comfortable on hc. Check his clay stats and
> you will see he has worsened there compared to on other surfaces(i.e.
> return stats.)

Please check again. And *do* write English.

[calim...@gmx.de]

Of course.

Take Graf for example.
BOAT since 1988, GOAT since 1996.

Max

[Court_1]

On clay, Djokovic's return stats have regressed the most:


1st serve pts / 1st serve return:
career: 70.5 / 36.1
2015: 74.6 / 33.2
2014: 71.5 / 34.2
2013: 71.1 / 35.6 (#5)
2012: 71.8 / 37.0 (#6)
2011: 73.9 (#9)/ 36.0
2010: 68.3 / 37.9 (#3)
2009: 72.0 / 37.7 (#5)
2008: 70.5 / 37.5 (#4)
2007: 66.6 / 35.3

2nd serve pts / 2nd serve return:
career: 54.0 (#6) / 55.1 (#8)
2015: 59.8 (#1) / 55.5 (#4)
2014: 56.9 (#3) / 59.3 (#2)
2013: 57.9 (#2) / 53.9 (#7)
2012: 54.9 (#9) / 52.8
2011: 59.1 (#2) / 57.7 (#2)
2010: 46.6 / 55.1 (#5)
2009: 50.9 / 57.2 (#2)
2008: 56.7 (#3) / 55.3 (#8)
2007: 50.4 / 53.0

Service games won / Return games won:
career: 81.7 / 35.5 (#8)
2015: 90.6 (#2) / 33.0 (#4)
2014: 83.1 (#9) / 37.2 (#2)
2013: 83.0 / 34.3 (#4)
2012: 80.5 / 33.4 (#7)
2011: 88.0 (#2) / 37.1 (#4)
2010: 78.9 / 38.6 (#2)
2009: 82.2 / 38.3 (#3)
2008: 84.9 (#6) / 37.1 (#3)
2007: 76.2 / 31.6

If Djokovic was going to lose anywhere, clay was the most logical choice as that is currently his worst surface. He is clearly better on hc and then on grass these days. Soderling was correct--Djokovic is the most vulnerable on clay.

Panic time for you when the FO rolls around and your hero possibly loses yet again? Or will you just hop onto another bandwagon? Maybe you will return to the Nadal bandwagon if Nadal can snag another FO?

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Logical place to lose? lol

Djokovic's stats on clay are better than any other player
specially the one he lost to and Soderling is wrong about
djokovic is not natural on clay because he loves clay and grew up
playing on clay plus Soderling never meant he will lose to a
player like Vesely.

But what do I know, you know it all :)

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 6:10:12 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
> Djokovic's stats on clay are better than any other player
> specially the one he lost to and Soderling is wrong about
> djokovic is not natural on clay because he loves clay and grew up
> playing on clay

Better than any other player on clay? You mean compared to most of the useless turds on tour? All Djokovic needs is a pulse these days to do better on clay than most of them. There are no clay specialists today as there were in previous eras. Djokovic and Federer are not clay specialists.

No Soderling is not wrong. Djokovic is not that comfortable on clay. And the stats I posted above clearly show a dip in Djokovic's return stats on clay.

plus Soderling never meant he will lose to a
> player like Vesely.

Soderling said before MC that if Djokovic were going to lose anywhere, clay would be the most likely place. He didn't state which player Djokovic may lose to. Was Soderling right or not? Did Djokovic lose in MC or not? *rolls eyes*

> But what do I know

Not much.

[PeteWasLucky]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com> Wrote in message:

> ?Hiss first. Listen later."
>

Vesely is more clay organic than djokovic is on clay :)

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Federer and Djokovic are not clay specialist? Means what? Are clay
specialist are ones that win on clay and lose everywhere
else?

These days are gone, players are good on all surfaces and these
non clay specialist will beat the old days clay specialist.

Djokovic is the number one clay player in the last 12 months and
by no means he lost this match because he isn't comfortable on
clay.

*rolls eyes*

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

> Federer and Djokovic are not clay specialist?

No they aren't.

> Means what? Are clay
> specialist are ones that win on clay and lose everywhere
> else?
> These days are gone,
players are good on all surfaces and these
> non clay specialist will beat the old days clay specialist.

But players are not equally good on all surfaces even today. Clay is the "weaker" surface for Djokovic and Federer. Nadal is weaker on hc and grass than he is on clay. Murray has never done particularly well on clay and has always done better on grass and hc, etc.

And no, non-clay specialists today would not beat the old clay court specialists more often than not, guys like Borg, Lendl, Guga, Vilas, etc. No way. You don't know what you are talking about if you think that. But then again, you never know what you are talking about.

> Djokovic is the number one clay player in the last 12 months and
> by no means he lost this match because he isn't comfortable on
> clay.

I said he is the LEAST comfortable on clay compared to other surfaces. Learn freaking English and take it up with Soderling if you have a problem with that theory. I agree with him. I didn't say Djokovic wasn't good on clay. But he's no Nadal, Borg, Vilas, Lendl,Guga, etc.

[PeteWasLucky]

Since you know it all, please describe for us how the clay specialist is different than Federer and Djokovic.

[PeteWasLucky]

PeteWasLucky <Waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I will make it easy for you, a clay specialist in general is a
player that does brilliantly against the same group of players
that he does badly against on other surfaces.

But when the same player almost has the same performance on all
surfaces, this doesn't take away his master of clay.

Group of players mean the field of the players not limited to the
top two or three.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 14.4.2016 0:55, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>> On 13.4.2016 23:47, Court_1 wrote:
>>> WTF are you rambling on about? Djokovic is not a natural clay
>>> court player. He's much more comfortable on hc. Check his clay
>>> stats and you will see he has worsened there compared to on other
>>> surfaces(i.e. return stats.)

This wrong. HC is Djok's best surface, no surprise there, but he is very
very good on clay. His clay stats haven't "worsened" either.

>>
>> Please check again. And *do* write English.
>
> On clay, Djokovic's return stats have regressed the most:

Not sure what's going on here. They haven't "regressed".

Why is "regressing" even an issue? I mean, Djok just had the best year
ever. Does the supposed "regressing" on clay mean he's not a natural on
clay? Huh? WTF?

I'll redo the numbers, the comparison is between clay, hard only. No
need to go to 1st 2nd serves, the total on return should do. Only years
2011-2015, to save typing.

Point win% on return
Clay HC match win% clay
2015 42 44 94.1
2014 44 43 87.5
2013 43 44 85.7
2012 43 44 80.0
2011 44 46 95.0

There is no regression in return numbers on either surface. All
the yearly return numbers are picked from the same pop, except for 2011
HC.

Third, the yearly match win% lives its own life relative to the return
numbers. Contrary to what you say above, the return stats don't catch
the meaning of being "natural" on clay.

But you say so many convoluted things, it's hard to decipher which is
what is really meant.

>
> If Djokovic was going to lose anywhere, clay was the most logical
> choice as that is currently his worst surface.

The "logic" is not saying much. Even on clay, Djok has lost about 1
match/year and most of the losses are to Rafa. None of that predicts a
stray loss to Vesely. Except in hindsight of course.

Besides, clay needs the most time getting used to, even for
"specialists". 1st match on clay + Vesely is dangerous. I already wrote
in my preview of Djok's MC draw that upsets are possible.

[me]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:40:55 AM UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 6:10:12 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> >>
> >> Djokovic's stats on clay are better than any other player
> >> specially the one he lost to and Soderling is wrong about
> >> djokovic is not natural on clay because he loves clay and grew up
> >> playing on clay
> >
> > Better than any other player on clay? You mean compared to most of the useless turds on tour? All Djokovic needs is a pulse these days to do better on clay than most of them. There are no clay specialists today as there were in previous eras. Djokovic and Federer are not clay specialists.
> >
> > No Soderling is not wrong. Djokovic is not that comfortable on clay. And the stats I posted above clearly show a dip in Djokovic's return stats on clay.
> >
> > plus Soderling never meant he will lose to a
> >> player like Vesely.
> >
> > Soderling said before MC that if Djokovic were going to lose anywhere, clay would be the most likely place. He didn't state which player Djokovic may lose to. Was Soderling right or not? Did Djokovic lose in MC or not? *rolls eyes*
> >
> >> But what do I know
> >
> > Not much.
> >
>
> Federer and Djokovic are not clay specialist? Means what? Are clay
> specialist are ones that win on clay and lose everywhere
> else?

Old, broken Kuerten crushed peak Federer at the French open.

[soccerfan777]

Federer is no clay court specialist but is a damn good player. He is how Lendl was on grass. Only the specialists like Nadal and Kuerten could take peak Federer out of the French Open.

[bob]

you said about 2 weeks ago djok had almost no chance to lose at FO
this yr and i said i'd wait til a few clay matches were played before
i predicted FO.

bob
i

[bob]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:42:56 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com>
wrote:

>On 13.4.2016 23:24, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:48:30 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Soderling also said Djokovic is not a natural clay court player
>>>> and if he is going to lose anywhere it will be on clay. He nailed
>>>> that one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh really?!! He is not natural clay court player, but he wins most
>>> of the clay masters last year and reaches many FO finals, what an
>>> amazing analysis by Soderling , lol.
>>
>> Djokovic is not a natural clay court player. Soderling is 100% right.
>
>So what does Söderling mean by that? You can't escape the fact that Djok
>has one of the best win percentages on clay, ever. Better than any of
>the 90s "specialists" up to and including Guga.

IMO djok is doing on clay similar to what borg did on grass (minus the
5 wimbledons for bjorn, 0 FO for djok of course). i.e. he's winning a
lot even though it's not his best natural surface just by being much
better overall then the competition.

>> He's reaching clay finals because the conditions are more homogenous
>> and because the competition on clay is dire. Outside of some of the
>> Spaniards,
>
>Which happen to include Rafa.
>
>> most of the players are not natural clay court players.
>
>What does that mean? Rogi, for instance has a strong clay background.
>Most Europeans have.
>
>That Rogi is better on other surfaces does not mean he is "un-natural".
>
>I suspect you're again painting by numbers.
>
>> Currently I think clay is Djokovic's weakest surface. I think if you
>> look at his stats such as returning stats, they are weakest on clay.
>
>Why not just take a look at them? Then you don't have to "think".

bob

[bob]

agree, fed is not a clay specialist, but i'd say fed's game is equal
on clay as anywhere else. where say nadal's game on HC is inferior to
his clay game.

bob

[John Liang]

The same Kuerten as defending champion of FO was playing Federer in 2002 Hamburg got a bagel in the first set

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDNDZ0Gsq3M

[soccerfan777]

Do not completely agree. I think his clay game compares well to slow HC. But his serve is more potent on fast HC and grass.

[bob]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777

but he moves very naturally on clay, and minus that clay god, he'd
have at least 5 FOs.

bob

[Whisper]

Tune-up. Guga had a broken back & didn't even try to win tune-ups at
that point. He stepped it up a little & crushed peakest Federer easily
at FO.

[John Liang]

He was the defending champ at FO and Federer just started his climb, no excuse if he was in the match he was fit, losing 0,2 in those losing set is a crush not 4,4,4 .

[me]

Old Guga best peak Fed at FO.
Old Fed beat peak Djokovic at FO.
What would peak Guga do to Djokovic at FO?

[Whisper]

Why do you like to lie so much? I'll bet you $50 Guga was not the
defending FO champ when he crushed peak prime Federer in straight sets.
Imo it was a few yrs since Guga won anything of note, & he was a long
way past his peak.

I imagine peak Guga would beat peak Federer 61 61 62 at FO.

[Whisper]

Peak Guga had the ability to beat anyone on clay, even Rafa/Borg imo.
He just wasn't as strong or consistent as those guys, but no doubt on
his good days he'd beat them.

[John Liang]

I bet you Kuerten was the defending of FO when he lost to Federer with that bagel set. I will bet you $500 and he was the defending champion so base on your own theory regarding peak he was in the middle of his peak.

>
> I imagine peak Guga would beat peak Federer 61 61 62 at FO.

I imagine Guga was luck to win three FO in late 90s when there was no great clay court players, moving him forward to 2005-2010 he would not be in a single FO final.

[John Liang]

peak Guga was always a mental midget and just not consistent and mentally stable enough to beat any of the two you mentioned.

[John Liang]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:06:51 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:58 PM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:51:24 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Federer and Djokovic are not clay specialist? Means what? Are clay
> >>>>> specialist are ones that win on clay and lose everywhere
> >>>>> else?
> >>>>
> >>>> Old, broken Kuerten crushed peak Federer at the French open.
> >>>
> >>> The same Kuerten as defending champion of FO was playing Federer in 2002 Hamburg got a bagel in the first set
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDNDZ0Gsq3M
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tune-up. Guga had a broken back & didn't even try to win tune-ups at
> >> that point. He stepped it up a little & crushed peakest Federer easily
> >> at FO.
> >
> > He was the defending champ at FO and Federer just started his climb, no excuse if he was in the match he was fit, losing 0,2 in those losing set is a crush not 4,4,4 .
> >
>
>
> Why do you like to lie so much?

I don't lie however I know you lie too much, you now have a problem differentiating between lies and truth.

[John Liang]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:06:51 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:58 PM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:51:24 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Federer and Djokovic are not clay specialist? Means what? Are clay
> >>>>> specialist are ones that win on clay and lose everywhere
> >>>>> else?
> >>>>
> >>>> Old, broken Kuerten crushed peak Federer at the French open.
> >>>
> >>> The same Kuerten as defending champion of FO was playing Federer in 2002 Hamburg got a bagel in the first set
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDNDZ0Gsq3M
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tune-up. Guga had a broken back & didn't even try to win tune-ups at
> >> that point. He stepped it up a little & crushed peakest Federer easily
> >> at FO.
> >
> > He was the defending champ at FO and Federer just started his climb, no excuse if he was in the match he was fit, losing 0,2 in those losing set is a crush not 4,4,4 .
> >
>
>

I'll bet you $50

For a person who does not honor his previous bets on some real estate in Newcastle, I will bet with you when you send a letter to every single person that bet with you with your properties and pay off the debts you owed first. I don't trust known liars like you.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 2:45:55 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> This wrong. HC is Djok's best surface, no surprise there, but he is very
> very good on clay. His clay stats haven't "worsened" either.

His return stats on clay HAVE worsened, especially the 1st serve return points. Whether that means anything concrete for his future clay results remains to be seen.

> Why is "regressing" even an issue? I mean, Djok just had the best year
> ever. Does the supposed "regressing" on clay mean he's not a natural on
> clay? Huh? WTF?

He had the best 2015 winning mostly hc titles. Did I miss his FO win after getting rid of a broken down Nadal? When Federer didn't have Nadal to contend with at the FO in 2009, Fed capitalized and won the title. ;)

> I'll redo the numbers, the comparison is between clay, hard only. No
> need to go to 1st 2nd serves, the total on return should do. Only years
> 2011-2015, to save typing.
>
> Point win% on return
> Clay HC match win% clay
> 2015 42 44 94.1
> 2014 44 43 87.5
> 2013 43 44 85.7
> 2012 43 44 80.0
> 2011 44 46 95.0

Why do you have to alter the numbers that I have provided? I don't even know what you are trying to do? Those stats I provided were done by two huge Djokovic fans(objective fans) who noticed the regression of return stats on clay vs his return stats on hc.

Here are his hardcourt return stats (the # in brackets represents his ranking at the time.) Compare the hc return stats to the clay stats I provided above and the difference is clear. It doesn't mean he won't win clay tournaments including the FO moving forward but there is more of a regression with his return stats on clay. It's very clear.

HARD COURT
1st serve pts /1st serve return:
career: 73.8 / 33.2 (#4)
2015: 73.9 / 34.3 (#2)
2014: 76.1 / 33.5 (#1)
2013: 75.6 / 35.3 (#1)
2012: 75.3 / 34.9 (#1)
2011: 73.4 / 36.1 (#2)
2010: 70.7 / 33.7 (#2)
2009: 72.3 / 32.0 (#5)
2008: 75.0 / 30.8 (#10)
2007: 74.4 / 31.6 (#9)

2nd serve pts / 2nd serve return:

career: 55.9 / 55.5 (#2)
2015: 59.8 (#1) / 58.1 (#1)
2014: 55.5 (#7) / 57.7 (#1)
2013: 60.5 (#1) / 56.3 (#1)
2012: 56.8 (#3) / 57.8 (#1)
2011: 53.8 / 57.8 (#1)
2010: 53.1 / 54.0 (#5)
2009: 54.3 (#8) / 53.8 (#5)
2008: 57.4 (#3) / 52.1
2007: 55.4 (#4) / 53.4 (#9)

Service games won / Return games won:

career: 86.4 / 32.5 (#1)
2015: 88.1 (#8) / 36.5 (#1)
2014: 88.5 (#5) / 34.2 (#1)
2013: 89.3 (#4) / 34.2 (#1)
2012: 88.8 (#4) / 36.5 (#1)
2011: 84.9 / 41.0 (#1)
2010: 82.3 / 31.7 (#2)
2009: 84.7/ 29.7 (#4)
2008: 88.1 (#6) / 27.3 (#7)
2007: 86.9 (#5) / 28.6 (#6)

> The "logic" is not saying much. Even on clay, Djok has lost about 1
> match/year and most of the losses are to Rafa. None of that predicts a
> stray loss to Vesely. Except in hindsight of course.

Soderling said that if Djokovic were going to lose anywhere it would be on clay. He was correct. The end.

> Besides, clay needs the most time getting used to, even for
> "specialists". 1st match on clay + Vesely is dangerous. I already wrote
> in my preview of Djok's MC draw that upsets are possible.

Excuses excuses.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> you said about 2 weeks ago djok had almost no chance to lose at FO
> this yr and i said i'd wait til a few clay matches were played before
> i predicted FO.

Well, hopefully Djokovic will screw up yet another fantastic chance to win the FO title. I mean what more does the guy need? He's been dealing with a subpar Nadal since 2013 on clay and last year he played an imposter Nadal at the FO thrashing him in straights and then he loses to Wawrinka? Prime Fed would have never screwed up that opportunity.

But Djokovic's loss vs Vesely at MC probably means little. Let's see what happens at the other clay tune-ups and let's see the draw at the FO.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-4, me wrote:

> What would peak Guga do to Djokovic at FO?

An "on" Guga would beat Djokovic 9 times out of 10 at the FO IMO.

[PeteWasLucky]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com> Wrote in message:

> ?Hiss first. Listen later."
>

Save your energy, Soderling said djokovic isn't natural on clay
and will lose to nobody on clay.

Just take it like that :)

[Court_1]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:06:45 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:

> Save your energy, Soderling said djokovic isn't natural on clay
> and will lose to nobody on clay.
>
> Just take it like that :)

Listen you uncouth Bogan, don't make things up which were never said. Soderling said Djokovic isn't a natural on clay(and that's true) but he didn't say Djokovic will lose to "anybody" on clay. He said if Djokovic were going to lose anywhere, it will likely be on clay. He said this a few days before the MC tournament and then what happened? Djokovic lost on clay(the first time he's lost early in an important tournament since the Cold War.) So Soderling was correct. What's the problem?

Secondly, I provided info (compiled by two normal Djokovic fans) which show that Djokovic's return stats on clay have decreased whereas his return stats on hardcourt have increased. Make of that what you will. Maybe it means nothing, maybe it's a strange coincidence, whatever. It's up to each person to interpret the stats how he wants to but you can't dispute that the difference exists.

[PeteWasLucky]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Just let it go, it's fine, believe me, everything will be okay.

[John Liang]

That opinion does not hold up very well when we look at the player who beat Kuerten during his top year at FO. 18 years old Safin beat Kuerten in 1998 FO in five sets and then in 1999 Medvdev beat Kuerten in straight sets. Unless you think Djokovic is not as good as those two there is no way Kuerten was going to beat Djokovic 9 out of 10 times at FO. Also remember how mentally flaky Kuerten was as a multiple slam champ I find it is hard to say him winning against a player like Djokovic who is a superior player all round. If not for the likes of Nadal and Federer standing between Djokovic and FO he would have won a few. Fed, Nadal and even Wawrinka were certainly no Corretja or Norman on clay.

[John Liang]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 7:48:28 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:

I like Guga and he has a lot of flair, when he came up in ranking I was hoping he could transfer his success on clay to other surface and he never did. The guy was charming and real character but also a mental midget with little tactical brain to think on court. He could beat Djokovic but not 9/10 times more like 4/10 times.

[Whisper]

On 15/04/2016 7:46 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> you said about 2 weeks ago djok had almost no chance to lose at FO
>> this yr and i said i'd wait til a few clay matches were played before
>> i predicted FO.
>
> Well, hopefully Djokovic will screw up yet another fantastic chance to win the FO title. I mean what more does the guy need? He's been dealing with a subpar Nadal since 2013 on clay and last year he played an imposter Nadal at the FO thrashing him in straights and then he loses to Wawrinka? Prime Fed would have never screwed up that opportunity.
>

Fed almost screwed it up though. He was down 2 sets 0 & a break in the
3rd v Haas - 5 pts from losing in straights.

[Whisper]

No doubt. Djoker is a great hardcourt player, & those groundies are
pretty easy pickings for a true clay court master.

[John Liang]

Easy picking for true clay court master, you'd better ask Nadal about that, there is no truer master of clay than Nadal, it took him 5 sets to beat Djokovic in 2013 and last year was a straight sets loss for Nadal. Five sets is never easy pick as was straight sets loss. Kuerten at his peak lost in straight sets to Medvedev in 98 FO, took to five sets by Mark Russel in 2001. Yes, he can beat Djoker on clay but 9 out of 10 that is border line to prediction like your earlier work like Tomic winnining Wimbledon in 2015, Roddick winning 12 slam or Federer winning just 1 slam.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:08:59 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Court_1 < Wrote in message:

Just let it go? You started with me by making a completely false statement concerning Soderling. You incorrectly said Soderling stated Djokovic would lose to a nobody on clay and of course he never said that. You like to twist words and you better believe if you are going to do that you should be prepared for the backlash from me. Man up.

[Court_1]

I know Guga was often a flake but I said that an "on" Guga would beat Djokovic at the FO 9 times out of 10. Maybe 9 times out of 10 is too much but IMO overall Guga was the much better clay court player.

[Court_1]

Yes, but when it comes to tennis results, almost doesn't count. Fed didn't end up screwing it up and so far Djokovic has screwed it up. So far. It's a new year and a new FO coming up so another chance for Djokovic.

[TT]

No he wasn't.

[Whisper]

On 15/04/2016 7:47 PM, John Liang wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 6:53:34 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 15/04/2016 7:48 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-4, me wrote:
>>>
>>>> What would peak Guga do to Djokovic at FO?
>>>
>>> An "on" Guga would beat Djokovic 9 times out of 10 at the FO IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No doubt. Djoker is a great hardcourt player, & those groundies are
>> pretty easy pickings for a true clay court master.
>
> Easy picking for true clay court master, you'd better ask Nadal about that, there is no truer master of clay than Nadal,

Before last yr the FO h2h between them was 6-0.

[Court_1]

Yes he was. You didn't even watch tennis in those days. What do you know? We know what your agenda is. You just want to make Nadal look better by propping up Djokovic and Federer on clay but no need for that because Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time and a peak Nadal would have defeated anybody on clay with the exception of possibly Borg. Borg is the only guy who can compare to Nadal on clay.

[bob]

that's exactly what i said last wk, and you criticized it. i accept
your apology courty.

but i agree it's not smart to try and give a valid slam prediction
months in advance, we can all sepculate yrs down the road just for
fun.

bob

[bob]

don't overanalyze john, it's not your strength.

bob

[TT]

Djokovic is BY FAR better claycourter than Guga.

Guga won 3 RG titles against clowns, he only won ever 4 clay masters.
His clay career win% is under 70%. Yes he was good but also lucky. He
really is not much better than Ferrero, if at all.

Djokovic meanwhile can actually hang with Rafa playing close to his
best, as seen in 2013 SF and many other occasions. Djokovic won 7 clay
masters so far (despite playing same era with Nadal), has win% of 79%
and 3 RG finals.

The difference to Guga's advantage is only that both played 3 RG finals,
all of which Guga won while Djoko lost. Of course the opponents were
different class... Djoko has played during Nadal era, Guga during clown era.

[John Liang]

I will tell you this through out his career on clay Guga won about 180 matches and lost about 80+ match, there is no way a player that lost 1 out of every 3 matches he played on clay is going to beat a quality player like Djokovic 9 out of 10 times when his oppositions were anywhere near the quality of a Djokoivc. Djokovic faced far tougher opposition on clay in Federer and Nadal, Nadal without doubt the best clay court player ever up to now. Federer would certainly be the best player ever to win just 1 FO certainly way better than Magnus Norman or Corretja.

[John Liang]

And in 2013 it went to five sets if that is no easy picking.

[John Liang]

This is your four reply to my post so you still don't know how to count or keep your own word. Of course any decent analysis is too difficult for a robot like you bob. Better stick in line with your master and programmer bob.

[Whisper]

You're forgetting this is a huge clay clown era though. The fact guys
like Djoker (Hardcourter) can get so far at FO proves it. Federer made
5 FO finals in this era despite being a shadow of Guga's best clay form.

Guga at rock bottom & close to retirement easily beat the peakest
Federer at FO in 2004. Fed won the other 3 slams that yr & Rafa didn't
play, so old relic Guga arguably prevented Fed's calendar slam, & he
beat him too easily.

Court is right you're just trying to make Rafa look even better by
suggesting guys like Djoker are 2nd or 3rd best claycourters ever.

Everyone is laughing at you. Rafa is clay goat/boat, but he's playing
in an era where nobody knows how to play on clay besides him. The rest
are just playing regular hardcourt tennis on clay.

[Whisper]

Fed would only win FO in this era. Even Rafter beat Fed at FO, not just
old Guga. Fed/Djoker are players for the modern game, they wouldn't
fare so well in earlier eras where more diverse skills were required.

[Whisper]

Point is Djoker/Fed are not claycourters, only Rafa is. They only do
well on clay in this era for obvious reasons.

[John Liang]

And Sampras couldn't win one in any era even Delgado beat him.

[John Liang]

The point is your stupidity is beyond normal.

[TT]

15.4.2016, 16:31, Whisper kirjoitti:
> Guga at rock bottom & close to retirement easily beat the peakest
> Federer at FO in 2004.

So what? Guga didn't even win the title, Gaudio did. Is Gaudio better
than peak Federer too?

[TT]

15.4.2016, 16:31, Whisper kirjoitti:

> Everyone is laughing at you. Rafa is clay goat/boat, but he's playing
> in an era where nobody knows how to play on clay besides him.

Yeah, except all the top players were born on clay...

[TT]

15.4.2016, 16:32, Whisper kirjoitti:
> Fed would only win FO in this era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_Open_men%27s_singles_champions

[TT]

You're like the fucking 12 year olds at MTF...

[John Liang]

They are not the 2nd or 3rd best clay court player ever and Guga wasn't either

>
> Everyone is laughing at you. Rafa is clay goat/boat, but he's playing
> in an era where nobody knows how to play on clay besides him. The rest
> are just playing regular hardcourt tennis on clay.

You are forgetting the opposition that Guga faced in winning his three titles are much inferior to both Djoker and Fedrerer. Clay court champ like Moya types could not even a single match against Federer regardless of surface. Kafelnikov was wiped out by a 21 years old Federer in straight sets in Davis Cup, even Guga himself was bagel by Federer when he was the leading player on clay.

[John Liang]

I have to say there is no mature adult with normal intelligence predict 12 slam for Roddick or Wimbledon for Tomic in 2012. The only exception been whisper and of course bob.

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:31:00 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

i always said rafa would might win 9 FOs in any era (but maybe not),
but for sure he'd struggle more to do it in the 90s. too many clay
specialists.

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:33:42 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

imo it's somewhat analogous to borg winning 5 wimbleons. he wan't a
natural grass courter, but he adapted well enough for the tournament
and was a great overall player. pete/mcenroe/becker were natural grass
court players.

fed/djok have only played really 1 great claycourter over and over at
FO and it's rafa. if you put them with 5 other natural clay experts
every year who weren't as good as rafa, but better than all the others
now, it'd be a hard fought situation IMO. win some, lose some.

bob

[MBDunc]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:05:31 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> i always said rafa would might win 9 FOs in any era (but maybe not),
> but for sure he'd struggle more to do it in the 90s. too many clay
> specialists.
>
> bob

Your obsession with those anonymous 90.ies clay specialists ... remains really smt. else ...

Which of those wonderful clay names of 90:is could challenge the prime Nadal? Kuerten at his rare insane days (when he was actually really good)?

.mikko

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 5:05:31 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> i always said rafa would might win 9 FOs in any era (but maybe not),
>> but for sure he'd struggle more to do it in the 90s. too many clay
>> specialists.
>>
>> bob
>
>Your obsession with those anonymous 90.ies clay specialists ... remains really smt. else ...
>Which of those wonderful clay names of 90:is could challenge the prime Nadal?

none - i always said nadal would still win all or almost all of what
he did. just he'd have tougher scorelines to do it. and perhaps with
2-3 tough matches in a row the odd loss.

> Kuerten at his rare insane days (when he was actually really good)?

i think guga, bruguera, courier, muster, chang, corretja, wilander,
lendl of the 85-2000 timeframe were better clay players than anyone
of the 2000-2015 timeframe minus rafa, and perhaps equal to fed. many
of those were very poor nonclay players, hence specialists.

bob

[me]

And Rafter scored a bagel in this, his only clay court match against Federer. To put that it in perspective, Nadal has only managed one bagel against Federer on clay, in all the matches they played.

Maybe Nadal's FO count is inflated from his main opposition being clay clowns like Federer?

[bob]

i wouldn't even call fed a clay clown, he's perfectly fine on the
surface, just not a specialist.

bob

[me]

guga, bruguera, courier, muster, wilander, lendl are all much better than Federer on clay.

chang, corretja are maybe equal

[me]

In the nineties he would be struggling to get out the first week at FO. Maybe a fluke QF or SF somewhere.

[Court_1]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:


> Court is right you're just trying to make Rafa look even better by
> suggesting guys like Djoker are 2nd or 3rd best claycourters ever.
>
> Everyone is laughing at you. Rafa is clay goat/boat, but he's playing
> in an era where nobody knows how to play on clay besides him. The rest
> are just playing regular hardcourt tennis on clay.

+1.

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:46:36 -0700 (PDT), me

i think that's too harsh, the man did win 17 slams, even if 10-12 were
clown era.

if fed played 85-2000 instead of 2000-2015, IMO he'd win a FO or two
over 15 yrs. he wouldn't see rafa in every final. but he'd struggle
through the early rounds much more, lose more there.

bob

[jdeluise]

me <neil.r...@udptechnology.com> writes:


>
> In the nineties he would be struggling to get out the first week at
> FO. Maybe a fluke QF or SF somewhere.

Really? You think guys like Emilio Sanchez would have his number?!

[Guypers]

Fed would have 21 slams in the 90s, petey may be 3 tops!

[John Liang]

I know Moya is 0:6 against Federer on all surfaces, Kafelnikov got floored in their only clay court best of five match winning just 2 games in the last two sets against a 21 years old Federer, Juan Carlos Ferrero was pretty close to a 90's clay court player he could not even win a match on clay against Federer. I don't know why you try to downgrade Federer's ability on clay, the guy is a pretty good clay court player and probably the best player to have won just 1 clay court grand slam in the last 30 years and he is/was never a Sampras on clay.

[John Liang]

So you think guys like Berasatequi getting to the final or Gomez winning FO was strength of clay court clown of 90s ? I don't.

[PeteWasLucky]

me <neil.r...@udptechnology.com> Wrote in message:

How did you come with this amazing fact?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[PeteWasLucky]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

The story is some people here are stuck in the past, and for them
playing on clay should always look like the old days in order you
can call someone a clay master (forget about word natural). I
don't even know what word natural means if the player is very
successful on the surface and beats everyone and wins
titles.

So a player can be very successful on a surface but still he is
not natural on it :)

The game changed a lot, and most of the top ten players now would
beat the equivalent top ten on clay of the old days.

Regarding Federer, if nadal was not around, he would have had at
least five FO, two MC, .... etc.

Too much game and talent and superior mover on any surface.

And about Djokovic is not natural on clay, ha ha ha. You want to
put him on the court with Lendl or Wilander?...lol
He is one of the best movers and is one of the best on the
baseline. Again if No Nadal and Federer, he would have won one or
two FO.

[Whisper]

Very wrong. Don't forget peak Agassi was around, as well as Rafter.
Just those 2 guys would have knocked him out of many slams. If Fed
managed to beat Sampras in a slam in the 90's I bet it would be a 1-off.

[Whisper]

It's the conditions that made it tough. I don't see why Fed would be
consistently making FO finals in the 90's with his game & the
environment at the time? Maybe he wins 1 FO somewhere, but that is far
from a given.

In this era nobody aside from Rafa plays true claycourt tennis. That's
why you got Ljubicic types making semis of FO.

[John Liang]

1 FO win and 4 FO finals plus 6 MS clay court titles is somehow equal to Chang who won 1 FO, 1 FO final and won 20 MS clay court match and lost 20 MS clay court match, or to Corretja who lost 2 FO finals and the only major MS win was a single title in Rome.

[Whisper]

You said Hewitt was better than Sampras in absolute terms, so how about
putting up Pete's numbers v Hewitt's to prove it?

[John Liang]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:32:40 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 16/04/2016 9:12 AM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:32:52 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Court is right you're just trying to make Rafa look even better by
> >>> suggesting guys like Djoker are 2nd or 3rd best claycourters ever.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone is laughing at you. Rafa is clay goat/boat, but he's playing
> >>> in an era where nobody knows how to play on clay besides him. The rest
> >>> are just playing regular hardcourt tennis on clay.
> >>
> >> +1.
> >
> > So you think guys like Berasatequi getting to the final or Gomez winning FO was strength of clay court clown of 90s ? I don't.
> >
>
>
> It's the conditions that made it tough. I don't see why Fed would be
> consistently making FO finals in the 90's with his game & the
> environment at the time? Maybe he wins 1 FO somewhere, but that is far
> from a given.

Just like you wouldn't see him winning more than 1 grand slam in 2003, and we know what happen in the last 12 years. We knew how well he dealt with clay court players that is not named Nadal, he wipe out Kafelnikov a few years before he reach the top of his game, took guga apart when guga was the reining FO champ in 2002, never lost to Fererro on clay, won all his matches against Moya on all surface, serioulsy do you really think Emillio Sanchaz, Adres Gomez, berastegui, Chang type beating Federer consistently, I don't.

>
> In this era nobody aside from Rafa plays true claycourt tennis. That's
> why you got Ljubicic types making semis of FO.

Well, he did but so did Phillip de Wulf or whatever his name was, JB Svesson, Chesnokov, Marc Rosset and others.