What if Djoker wins career slam within a year?
Whisper
That means we'd have 3 players achieve the feat within a 3 yr period -
FO '09 to FO '12 - Fed, Rafa & Djoker.
What does that tell us about the state of modern game?
Is it really possible modern players are equally great on all surfaces?
It seems like whoever is the best player at any given time is likely to
win FO as he is Wimbledon, or any slam.
It's sad the game has come to this, where the same type of tennis is
played on all surfaces. They may as well make everything HC.
TT
>
> That means we'd have 3 players achieve the feat within a 3 yr period -
> FO '09 to FO '12 - Fed, Rafa & Djoker.
>
> What does that tell us about the state of modern game?
>
> Is it really possible modern players are equally great on all surfaces?
>
> It seems like whoever is the best player at any given time is likely to
> win FO as he is Wimbledon, or any slam.
>
Your counting your chickens before they hatch. Nole has not won FO or USO.
felangey
Lol....I love these targets you guys keep setting for him:
Nole has never beaten Nadal in a final...er, check.
Nole has never beaten Nadal on clay...er, check.
Nole has never beaten Nadal on *real* clay...er, check.
Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam...er,check.
Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam final...er, check.
However, I like that the "Nole has never" movement has now moved away from
being Nadal-centric! :)
Ocean
Looks like Agassi's was the only true Career Slam of the past 40
years(since 1971).... Grass was fast. Clay was slow, RA and decoturf
were different. Plexicushion is closer to decoturf than RA was. Fed,
Rafa and Nole winning the Career Slam means all surface are almost
playing the same now.... Not good at all...
Whisper
No, but he has 2 USO r/ups & a bit unlucky not to make FO final last month.
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> No, but he has 2 USO r/ups & a bit unlucky not to make FO final last
> month.
Let me guess, because he lost two tiebreaks to Fed you somehow think Djok
deserves the win?
Shakes
Yes, no true disparity as such. For most top players today, it's
relatively easier to do well across different surfaces.
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, no true disparity as such. For most top players today, it's
> relatively easier to do well across different surfaces.
Come on Shakes, out with it. What are you *really* trying to say? No need
to beat around the bush...
reilloc
Sad, you say, and it's all because the surfaces play about the same?
You're overlooking the equipment, third-world dude. When you can hold a
ball on your racket and dish it anywhere with more spin than a
levitating graphene who needs a surface advantage?
Consider American baseball and the decision that it made a century ago
to standardize equipment. I'm sure there are other sports that have not
been as short-sighted as tennis in this area, too.
LNC
SliceAndDice
Then why has Rafa won nearly 70% of his titles on clay, if all the
surfaces are the same?
Ocean
Because the competition on clay is weak? Has been weak for a while
now.
TT
> On 7-Jul-2011, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>> What does this have to do with what I said, I said Whisper bases his
>> logic on false premises, counting chickens before they hatch.
>
> You claimed that the 2011 Wimbledon title was Nadal's from, what, the
> quarterfinals on?
Yes, he was playing best tennis by a fair margin.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
That does not make sense. If you are saying that all of the surfaces
are basically the same now and Rafa wins 70% on clay, shouldn't he win
on all other surfaces at the same rate? Obviously the surfaces have
become more similar than in the past but there are still differences
between them, hence Rafa's winning percentage which is and has always
been clay dominant.
Ocean
Eh, but he has won on other surfaces, no? All 4 slams. Masters Series,
etc. Problem is after July he is so exhausted he can barely win
anywhere....
TT
>> What does this have to do with what I said<
>
> such a few days of bravado and fighting talk previous....you have to give us
> a chance! :)
>
Keep on trolling.
>> btw...
>>
>> Nadal has never beaten Federer in USO.
>
> This is true....generally if you are no.2 you don't get the chance to beat
> someone if you don't show up in the final year after year.
>
Maybe Roger can reach the semis again so they'd meet. Hasn't been making
slam finals for some time except last FO and we know what happened
there. I guess his goal is improving his qf streak while smartly
protecting his h2h from coming hilarious.
SliceAndDice
Actually, I thought Fed was, until Tsonga played lights out tennis to
take him out.
Court_1
Actually, I thought Nadal was playing better tennis at Wimbledon than
Federer and Djokovic. He was playing much better at Wimbledon than he
was at the FO. He was lousy for his standards at the FO I thought.
Definitely lucky Fed took out Djokovic there. I honestly thought Nadal
had the edge at Wimbledon but boy was I wrong. Djokovic just did not
unleash his lethal level until the final. ;)
SliceAndDice
I thought Djoker played an average match in the final, except in the
second set. But just as Fed lost matches to Nadal at his peak outside
of clay because he is in his head, so did Nadal.
Ocean
Nole has outNadaled Nadal. Now the Serbian peaks in the finals like
Nadal used to.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes he has won on all surfaces but clearly his best results have been
on clay. 70% of his wins have come on clay. Very odd when you think
about the fact that the clay percentage is a very small portion of the
overall tennis season.
Patrick Kehoe
:))
P
TT
I'd say Nadal played poorly in the final, uncharacteristically on
important moments.
TT
> On Jul 7, 2:18 pm, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 7 jul, 17:16, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 7 jul, 16:10, SliceAndDice<fearsomeforeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 11:30 am, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 7 jul, 13:33, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> That means we'd have 3 players achieve the feat within a 3 yr period -
Nothing odd about it, he's clay GOAT.
If he had played same standard on other surfaces too he would have 20+
slams already.
SliceAndDice
Djoker is in Nadal's head.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holy crap. I nearly just fell off my chair! You are admitting that
Nadal is not the GOAT but he is clay GOAT and plays by far the best on
clay? Can't be. I must be dreaming! There must be something I am
missing.
CloudsRest
> FO '09 to FO '12 - Fed, Rafa & Djoker.
>
> What does that tell us about the state of modern game?
>
That the players at the top are truly great. Players for all
surfaces, that pass all courses.
> Is it really possible modern players are equally great on all surfaces?
Many players from the past were mostly great on all surfaces. Just a
tad of bad luck prevented them from passing all courses. Sampras is
just an outlier, not the norm. Most are at least competent playing
everywhere.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think Nadal was his best in that final either but even at his
best I think Djokovic was better. Djokovic exploits Nadal's BH yet
Djokoivc is solid off both wings.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Nadal looked lost at certain stages in that match. It is the
circle of tennis life: There is always somebody who figures out how
to play and beat the best at the time. Definitely a huge element is
mental in that match up already. Hopefully Nadal can figure out how to
reverse things both strategically and mentally?
felangey
take him out.<
I agree....I was getting way too excited about how well Fed was playing.
Although...I was also very conscious as to how everyone had erased Djokovic
from the picture.
felangey
>moments.<
The problem seems to be that Nadal just doesn't know where to win points
against Djoke....he kinda has all bases covered. The characteristic 'big
moment' play from Nadal, is almost always based on a strong play he has
against his opponent.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
But for how long? Will Djokovic crash and burn as he has in the past?
Or can he go the distance?
TT
Yes, I'm saying he's clay GOAT, nothing controversial there. Also, I did
not say that Nadal is not overall GOAT.
Court_1
I knew that your statement was a loaded one! So you think Nadal
currently is the overall GOAT? (whatever that means)
TT
>> Your counting your chickens before they hatch. Nole has not won FO or USO<
>
> Lol....I love these targets you guys keep setting for him:
>
> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a final...er, check.
> Nole has never beaten Nadal on clay...er, check.
> Nole has never beaten Nadal on *real* clay...er, check.
> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam...er,check.
> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam final...er, check.
>
What does this have to do with what I said, I said Whisper bases his
logic on false premises, counting chickens before they hatch.
btw...
Nadal has never beaten Federer in USO.
Above is the full list of Nadal's "targets" when it comes to Federer. lol
felangey
Ach, come on. You have been laying pretty low since the slaying....and after
such a few days of bravado and fighting talk previous....you have to give us
a chance! :)
> btw...
>
> Nadal has never beaten Federer in USO.
This is true....generally if you are no.2 you don't get the chance to beat
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> What does this have to do with what I said, I said Whisper bases his
> logic on false premises, counting chickens before they hatch.
You claimed that the 2011 Wimbledon title was Nadal's from, what, the
quarterfinals on?
Joe Ramirez
> On 7-Jul-2011, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, but he has 2 USO r/ups & a bit unlucky not to make FO final last
> > month.
>
> Let me guess, because he lost two tiebreaks to Fed you somehow think Djok
> deserves the win?
Tiebreaks are when the best of the best show their mettle. Lesser
players can be arsed about struggling for service breaks, but under
the maximal pressure of a first-to-seven points, winner-take-all duel,
only true "BOOE"/"BOAT" candidates thrive. Sure, we may resent such
tennis savants for not giving better value during the rest of the set,
but there's no denying their peerless talent, unmatched best-at-best
skills, or supreme mental focus. Fed is King of the Tiebreaks for a
good reason. :)
felangey
> quarterfinals on?<
Oh yes....I believe there was a "congrats Rafa on your 3rd Wimbledon" right
after he eased past a middling Del Po! :)
Sakari Lund
Has Nadal ever beaten Federer at Olympics or DC, those hugely
important events? Or YEC?
TT
No, but Berdych and Blake have.
> or DC, those hugely
No, Fed didn't have balls to play against Nadal in Spain.
> important events? Or YEC?
>
I'll give Fed that.
Sakari Lund
>7.7.2011 23:30, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:13:46 +0300, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 7.7.2011 18:02, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>> Your counting your chickens before they hatch. Nole has not won FO or USO<
>>>>
>>>> Lol....I love these targets you guys keep setting for him:
>>>>
>>>> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a final...er, check.
>>>> Nole has never beaten Nadal on clay...er, check.
>>>> Nole has never beaten Nadal on *real* clay...er, check.
>>>> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam...er,check.
>>>> Nole has never beaten Nadal in a Grand Slam final...er, check.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does this have to do with what I said, I said Whisper bases his
>>> logic on false premises, counting chickens before they hatch.
>>>
>>> btw...
>>>
>>> Nadal has never beaten Federer in USO.
>>>
>>> Above is the full list of Nadal's "targets" when it comes to Federer. lol
>>
>> Has Nadal ever beaten Federer at Olympics
>
>No, but Berdych and Blake have.
Yes, that's the same kind of reason why Fed hasn't beaten Nadal at
USO.
TT
The difference would be that Nadal has actually won USO and Fed didn't
make the final.
No reply on Fed shitting his pants at DC...
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> No reply on Fed shitting his pants at DC...
DC is a team sport for those of you who aren't aware of it.
TT
Swiss team would have needed Fed there, but no, he rather let the team
lose than risk getting demolished by Rafa.
Sakari Lund
Fed and Djok are playing DC this weekend, Nadal is fishing. When Spain
is in the final, Nadal might or might not be there, but he has played
DC already this year so I guess he gets one more DC title if Spain
wins. DC is one thing you really should not brag about so much.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many USO titles does Fed have? 5 right? From 2004-2008 Fed won USO
titles. Where was Nadal in that time to stop him? How long did it take
Nadal to win his ONE USO title? Until 2010 right? He beat Fed in Miami
on HC in 2004/2005 so what took him so long to get a USO title? Oh
wait I know.....he was only good enough to keep winning clay titles
consistently. I forgot! ;) Some GOAT candidate we have here. One
dimensional clay courter basically. Already Djokovic is almost on par
with Nadal for non-clay court slam titles. Djoko is just shy one grass
title but equivalent already on HC slam titles and Nadal has been on
tour a lot longer than Djoko has.
undecided
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nadal was a teen in 2004, 18 yrs old. 2005 - 19, 2006 - 20, and he did
not really change his game for the USO until last year and he won it.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh boy, one USO win since 2004. This Nadal was a teen or baby routine
is getting old. If he was old enough to beat Federer in Miami in 2005
on HC it does not make sense that he would not be able to make the
finals of HC slam in all of those years. That is 6 years! Surely a
potential GOAT can do better than that. If he did not really change
his game he is the stupid one since the majority of the tour is on HC
surfaces. He knew what the majority of the tour was composed of yet he
did not take it seriously according to you until 2010. Laughable!
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Djokovic did not start winning slam until 2008 and Djokovic did not
emerge as a leading player until
2007. It took Nadal 5 years to win a USO since his break through at
FO. His failure to defend
AO in 2010 and overall record on HC slams means on HC his result is
not comparable to Federer.
jdeluise
On 7-Jul-2011, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh boy, one USO win since 2004. This Nadal was a teen or baby routine
> is getting old. If he was old enough to beat Federer in Miami in 2005
> on HC it does not make sense that he would not be able to make the
> finals of HC slam in all of those years. That is 6 years! Surely a
> potential GOAT can do better than that. If he did not really change
> his game he is the stupid one since the majority of the tour is on HC
> surfaces. He knew what the majority of the tour was composed of yet he
> did not take it seriously according to you until 2010. Laughable!
Good post. And I will state again that Nadal had an unusually easy path to
the final in 2010. Not that it's his fault and I'm not trying to take the
win from him, but it's the truth.
Court_1
LOL. You are just going to rile up the Fedhaters who are going to say
Fed had an easy route to his slam wins. Ha, ha.
BUT, how in the hell can anybody rationally explain why it took Nadal
so long to win a HC slam when the whole tour bascially revolves around
HC? Maybe Nadal is just stupid? Does not make sense. Too much Majorca
fun in the sun? :))))
Whisper
> On Jul 7, 12:14 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7-Jul-2011, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> month.
>>
>> Let me guess, because he lost two tiebreaks to Fed you somehow think Djok
>> deserves the win?
>
> Tiebreaks are when the best of the best show their mettle. Lesser
> players can be arsed about struggling for service breaks, but under
> the maximal pressure of a first-to-seven points, winner-take-all duel,
> only true "BOOE"/"BOAT" candidates thrive. Sure, we may resent such
> tennis savants for not giving better value during the rest of the set,
> but there's no denying their peerless talent, unmatched best-at-best
> skills, or supreme mental focus. Fed is King of the Tiebreaks for a
> good reason. :)
Yes - not good enough to break the tie during regular play.
Whisper
> 7.7.2011 19:28, jdeluise kirjoitti:
That's true, & at that point I had some doubts about Djoker. But then I
figured he would peak again for a big Fed semi & Rafa final.
Whisper
> On Jul 7, 2:18 pm, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 7 jul, 17:16, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 7 jul, 16:10, SliceAndDice<fearsomeforeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 7, 11:30 am, Ocean<ocean.nau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 7 jul, 13:33, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> That means we'd have 3 players achieve the feat within a 3 yr period -
>>>>>>> FO '09 to FO '12 - Fed, Rafa& Djoker.
>>
>>>>>>> What does that tell us about the state of modern game?
>>
>>>>>>> Is it really possible modern players are equally great on all surfaces?
>>
>>>>>>> It seems like whoever is the best player at any given time is likely to
>>>>>>> win FO as he is Wimbledon, or any slam.
>>
>>>>>>> It's sad the game has come to this, where the same type of tennis is
>>>>>>> played on all surfaces. They may as well make everything HC.
>>
>>>>>> Looks like Agassi's was the only true Career Slam of the past 40
>>>>>> years(since 1971).... Grass was fast. Clay was slow, RA and decoturf
>>>>>> were different. Plexicushion is closer to decoturf than RA was. Fed,
>>>>>> Rafa and Nole winning the Career Slam means all surface are almost
>>>>>> playing the same now.... Not good at all...
>>
>>>>> Then why has Rafa won nearly 70% of his titles on clay, if all the
>>>>> surfaces are the same?
>>
>>>> Because the competition on clay is weak? Has been weak for a while
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> are basically the same now and Rafa wins 70% on clay, shouldn't he win
>>> on all other surfaces at the same rate? Obviously the surfaces have
>>> become more similar than in the past but there are still differences
>>> between them, hence Rafa's winning percentage which is and has always
>>> been clay dominant.
>>
>> Eh, but he has won on other surfaces, no? All 4 slams. Masters Series,
>> etc. Problem is after July he is so exhausted he can barely win
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> on clay. 70% of his wins have come on clay. Very odd when you think
> about the fact that the clay percentage is a very small portion of the
> overall tennis season.
One can come up with several explanations for this. eg AO is too early
in the year for him to be warmed up, & after Wimbledon he is exhausted
physically & mentally so results mediocre rest of the year. Feb-July
seems to be when he's freshest & most eager.
steve jaros
>
> That means we'd have 3 players achieve the feat within a 3 yr period -
>
> What does that tell us about the state of modern game?
>
> Is it really possible modern players are equally great on all surfaces?
>
> It seems like whoever is the best player at any given time is likely to
> win FO as he is Wimbledon, or any slam.
>
> It's sad the game has come to this, where the same type of tennis is
> played on all surfaces. They may as well make everything HC.
yes, we all know agassi's career GS achievement was more difficult than
feds and rafas, but weren't you arguing just a week ago that playability
at wimbledon is still radically different from the FO?
--
There is a vain woman of the worst kind in every poet.
- Balzac
TT
Nadal got his first HC slam title in 2009 AO, while Federer got his
first in 2004 AO. Their age difference is 5 years.
Nadal also got his first Wimbledon in 2008, while Federer got his first
in 2003. So same age again.
Also Nadal got to Wimbledon final 2 years earlier than Federer.
So Nadal has gotten his first titles on HC+grass same age as Federer.
However Nadal got his first RG title in 2005, while Federer got his
first in 2009. That means Nadal was 9 years ahead of Federer on clay. 9
years! How can Federer be called GOAT? Laughable!
TT
> On 7-Jul-2011, Court_1<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh boy, one USO win since 2004. This Nadal was a teen or baby routine
>> is getting old. If he was old enough to beat Federer in Miami in 2005
>> on HC it does not make sense that he would not be able to make the
>> finals of HC slam in all of those years. That is 6 years! Surely a
>> potential GOAT can do better than that. If he did not really change
>> his game he is the stupid one since the majority of the tour is on HC
>> surfaces. He knew what the majority of the tour was composed of yet he
>> did not take it seriously according to you until 2010. Laughable!
>
> Good post. And I will state again that Nadal had an unusually easy path to
> the final in 2010.
But final opponent was Djokovic.
> Not that it's his fault and I'm not trying to take the
> win from him, but it's the truth.
Yes you are.
Federer won his first USO title by beating Hewitt, I'm not trying to
take that win from him but Hewitt doesn't really have any weapons.
Fed beat guys like Philippoussis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Baghdatis, old
Agassi etc in slam finals. Now THAT is easy.
Ocean
Nole had an unusually easy path to the Wimbledon final this year.
Tomic who is a teen and Tsonga who is a clown.
jdeluise
On 8-Jul-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> One can come up with several explanations for this
Yes, you're fond of explaining away poor results, but only for players you
either like or believe you predicted good things for.
John
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote in message
news:n8CdneUh27WcRYvT...@westnet.com.au...
More like excuses than explanations. AO starts the same year for all other
players and it should be
more disadvantageous for player who did well in YEC which Federer usually
did very well and
Davis Cup. All top players play Wimbledon another poor excuses for his
mediocre form for rest
of the year.
>
>
Carey
Well summed up, as it has been many times before.
Whipser curiously never seems to tire of himself-
the Energizer bunny of RST tripe. :)
felangey
> the Energizer bunny of RST tripe. :)<
I'll say the Duracell bunny - older, lamer and with his rage, probably
ginger haired! ;)
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
He is currently taking a 6 week break. Surely he should be rested well
for the upcoming HC swing. He is 25, not 95.
The fact is he is not as successful on HC as he is on clay. He may
have adapted himself this is true, but his adaptation has not been so
stellar on HC IMO. Watch, now that I say that he will probably win 2
or 3 more HC slams! :)
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excuse me, Federer won his first slam in 2003 at Wimbledon. He then
went on a tear and started winning slam after slam on muliple
surfaces. Nadal won his first FO slam in 2005 but it took him untl
2009 to win a HC slam at the AO and then again in 2010 at the USO.
This is after Nadal defeated Federer in Miami on HC in 2005. So he was
already beating Fed on HC in 2005. Why did it take him from 2005 until
2009 to win a HC slam?
Re the FO, Federer was making finals of the FO as early as 2006 but he
faced Nadal in the finals and Nadal is better on clay than Federer. So
Federer was making slam finals on his worst surface 3 years after
winning his first slam but Nadal was not making the finals on HC his
worst surface and did not win a HC slam until 2009. Where was Nadal in
those HC slam finals? Also, the five year age difference between Fed
and Nadal is not really true in terms of tennis years. In tennis years
there is only really a two to three year difference between Fed and
Nadal. They have really been playing against the same players in a big
way since 2005 or so.
The fact is Federer's record on HC and grass is much better than
Nadal's. Nadal only surpasses Federer on CLAY!!!!! There is no friggin
comparison!
Court_1
Djokovic in 2010 at the USO was not playing anywhere near the level he
is playing at now. Nadal was beating Djokovic fairly easily back then.
Also when Nadal played Djokovic in 2010 at the USO Djokovic had one
slam. When Federer played Hewitt at the USO final Hewitt already had
two slams and Hewitt was a big deal back then. It was just Fed
cultivated his game and got a lot better than Hewitt just as Djokovic
has done now with Nadal.