info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What's the deal with Djokovic? - NYTimes article
220 views
Skip to first unread message
SliceAndDice
Jul 15, 2017, 11:16:29 PM7/15/17
to
Great read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/wimbledon-whats-the-deal-with-novak-djokovic.html
I’ve been watching Novak Djokovic play tennis for more than a decade, and I’ve never known quite what to make of him. He’s hard to read, which is strange, because few players seem so anxious, even desperate, to mean something. Still — you think of Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, and a clear sense of persona comes flooding through. You think of Djokovic and your brain starts buzzing with contradictions.
He’s been, at various moments, a giddy clown, mimicking other players for laughs; a peevish also-ran, faking injury rather than fighting through a loss; a spoiler; a moralist; a diet guru. He’s been, in some places and to some people, a figure of vaguely religious significance. He’s been a politician, moderating pronouncements for the cameras. He’s been a doting husband and father. He’s been a smirking patriarch. He’s been a loser. A genius. A fool.
Djokovic is out at Wimbledon, having retired with an elbow injury in the second set of his quarterfinal match against Tomas Berdych. Don’t be fooled, though — his absence is just another persona, another contradiction. Through it, he’ll loom larger over the final weekend at the All England Club than most players could manage with their presence.
It’s been that way all year. Djokovic is nowhere, a mysterious casualty of no one’s sure exactly what. At the same time, he’s everywhere, like a king on sick leave. Like an unanswered question.
It was just about a year ago, remember, that Djokovic was enjoying a merciless tear through men’s tennis. He’d won four majors in a row, six of the last eight. Through every postmatch interview, he grinned that amused and satisfied grin.
How did you feel out there, Novak?
How do you make it look so easy, Novak?
When will you run for office in Serbia, Novak?
Then, just when it seemed he couldn’t be stopped, just when people were talking seriously about an easy swerve around Nadal and Federer in the all-time major standings, something went hideously wrong. It’s still not entirely clear what. But it started last summer, right about when Sam Querrey shocked him at Wimbledon in the third round.
That ended the streak of majors. The No. 1 ranking fell in November. He lost in the first round at the Olympics, in the second round at the Australian Open. He made the quarterfinals at the French Open, but he was obliterated there in straight sets by Dominic Thiem. In the final set, he didn’t win a game.
The way he’d won before, he lost now. On the court, he looked not so much miserable as crazed. He’d always been tightly wound, a performer, a sideways glancer, at ease only in those brief intervals when the crowd bathed him in adoration. Now he added to this root nervousness a kind of wild-eyed, sped-up fidgetiness, like someone who’s got the jitters because he can’t sleep.
What happened, Novak?
Novak, the crowd-pleaser, never fires anyone. He cares too much about being the good guy, the benevolent patron — that’s a persona that matters to him. When he wants to be rid of an employee, what happens is that they “part ways,” by “mutual agreement,” and the employee releases a glowing statement about what a privilege it was to work with Djokovic.
In May he parted ways, by mutual agreement, with his entire coaching staff.
What‘s wrong, Novak?
What was most bizarre, throughout this phase of decline, was how little anyone seemed able to explain it. Novak himself was tongue-tied. “It was nothing physical,” he said in August, in the clearest explanation he ever offered for his wipeout. “It was some other things that I was going through privately.”
Oh, of course: some private … things. The tennis media is almost ritually circumspect. Tabloids have speculated furiously about the state of Djokovic’s marriage. Message-board posters have built elaborate theories on Jelena Djokovic’s air of wounded dignity in the player’s box. John McEnroe caused a minor dust up last week when he compared Djokovic’s downfall to that of Tiger Woods. But for the most part, the closer you get to the game itself, the more pundits have framed Djokovic’s nose-dive in terms that are careful and vague and respectful.
The vagueness may be appropriate. Djokovic’s marriage, if that was really the issue, is none of my business. (Which doesn’t mean I don’t find it fascinating.) It was disorienting, though, to see a great player’s decline take place inside this void of abashed euphemism.
Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors. It made Murray the No. 1 player in the world. Yet when we try to explain it, it’s a weird blur, an afterimage of gossip. It’s left Djokovic’s identity even less clear — the rare instance when adversity seems to leave us knowing less, not more, about a player.
I learned a lot, along the way, about the steps Djokovic was taking to reverse course. At one point he hired a guru specializing in long hugs; a kind of New Age questiness is another one of his personas. I didn’t learn much at all about what was wrong, or how it felt.
He was looking better, before the injury this week. Is he on the right track? He won the Eastbourne Wimbledon warm-up tournament, though he beat an awfully weak field. He brought in Andre Agassi, who knows from comebacks, as an unpaid adviser. But now Djokovic says he may be out for months, and also that he’s been dealing with this elbow issue for a year and a half. That might clarify things, if it were true. But he’s also repeatedly denied being injured.
I wonder what this has been like for him. For a player as tensely strung as Djokovic, as eager to be admired, it must have been excruciating to find himself at the center of an amorphous scandal. Other players publish memoirs; Djokovic published a diet and lifestyle book. He is someone who wants less to be known than to be right. This helps to explain the shifting personas: He needs to be seen by the cameras, but he wants them to catch him from a certain angle, in a certain light.
So maybe this world of controlled euphemism, this half-public semi-privacy, can help me make sense of his character after all. In any case, it’s the world he’s made
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/wimbledon-whats-the-deal-with-novak-djokovic.html
I’ve been watching Novak Djokovic play tennis for more than a decade, and I’ve never known quite what to make of him. He’s hard to read, which is strange, because few players seem so anxious, even desperate, to mean something. Still — you think of Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, and a clear sense of persona comes flooding through. You think of Djokovic and your brain starts buzzing with contradictions.
He’s been, at various moments, a giddy clown, mimicking other players for laughs; a peevish also-ran, faking injury rather than fighting through a loss; a spoiler; a moralist; a diet guru. He’s been, in some places and to some people, a figure of vaguely religious significance. He’s been a politician, moderating pronouncements for the cameras. He’s been a doting husband and father. He’s been a smirking patriarch. He’s been a loser. A genius. A fool.
Djokovic is out at Wimbledon, having retired with an elbow injury in the second set of his quarterfinal match against Tomas Berdych. Don’t be fooled, though — his absence is just another persona, another contradiction. Through it, he’ll loom larger over the final weekend at the All England Club than most players could manage with their presence.
It’s been that way all year. Djokovic is nowhere, a mysterious casualty of no one’s sure exactly what. At the same time, he’s everywhere, like a king on sick leave. Like an unanswered question.
It was just about a year ago, remember, that Djokovic was enjoying a merciless tear through men’s tennis. He’d won four majors in a row, six of the last eight. Through every postmatch interview, he grinned that amused and satisfied grin.
How did you feel out there, Novak?
How do you make it look so easy, Novak?
When will you run for office in Serbia, Novak?
Then, just when it seemed he couldn’t be stopped, just when people were talking seriously about an easy swerve around Nadal and Federer in the all-time major standings, something went hideously wrong. It’s still not entirely clear what. But it started last summer, right about when Sam Querrey shocked him at Wimbledon in the third round.
That ended the streak of majors. The No. 1 ranking fell in November. He lost in the first round at the Olympics, in the second round at the Australian Open. He made the quarterfinals at the French Open, but he was obliterated there in straight sets by Dominic Thiem. In the final set, he didn’t win a game.
The way he’d won before, he lost now. On the court, he looked not so much miserable as crazed. He’d always been tightly wound, a performer, a sideways glancer, at ease only in those brief intervals when the crowd bathed him in adoration. Now he added to this root nervousness a kind of wild-eyed, sped-up fidgetiness, like someone who’s got the jitters because he can’t sleep.
What happened, Novak?
Novak, the crowd-pleaser, never fires anyone. He cares too much about being the good guy, the benevolent patron — that’s a persona that matters to him. When he wants to be rid of an employee, what happens is that they “part ways,” by “mutual agreement,” and the employee releases a glowing statement about what a privilege it was to work with Djokovic.
In May he parted ways, by mutual agreement, with his entire coaching staff.
What‘s wrong, Novak?
What was most bizarre, throughout this phase of decline, was how little anyone seemed able to explain it. Novak himself was tongue-tied. “It was nothing physical,” he said in August, in the clearest explanation he ever offered for his wipeout. “It was some other things that I was going through privately.”
Oh, of course: some private … things. The tennis media is almost ritually circumspect. Tabloids have speculated furiously about the state of Djokovic’s marriage. Message-board posters have built elaborate theories on Jelena Djokovic’s air of wounded dignity in the player’s box. John McEnroe caused a minor dust up last week when he compared Djokovic’s downfall to that of Tiger Woods. But for the most part, the closer you get to the game itself, the more pundits have framed Djokovic’s nose-dive in terms that are careful and vague and respectful.
The vagueness may be appropriate. Djokovic’s marriage, if that was really the issue, is none of my business. (Which doesn’t mean I don’t find it fascinating.) It was disorienting, though, to see a great player’s decline take place inside this void of abashed euphemism.
Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors. It made Murray the No. 1 player in the world. Yet when we try to explain it, it’s a weird blur, an afterimage of gossip. It’s left Djokovic’s identity even less clear — the rare instance when adversity seems to leave us knowing less, not more, about a player.
I learned a lot, along the way, about the steps Djokovic was taking to reverse course. At one point he hired a guru specializing in long hugs; a kind of New Age questiness is another one of his personas. I didn’t learn much at all about what was wrong, or how it felt.
He was looking better, before the injury this week. Is he on the right track? He won the Eastbourne Wimbledon warm-up tournament, though he beat an awfully weak field. He brought in Andre Agassi, who knows from comebacks, as an unpaid adviser. But now Djokovic says he may be out for months, and also that he’s been dealing with this elbow issue for a year and a half. That might clarify things, if it were true. But he’s also repeatedly denied being injured.
I wonder what this has been like for him. For a player as tensely strung as Djokovic, as eager to be admired, it must have been excruciating to find himself at the center of an amorphous scandal. Other players publish memoirs; Djokovic published a diet and lifestyle book. He is someone who wants less to be known than to be right. This helps to explain the shifting personas: He needs to be seen by the cameras, but he wants them to catch him from a certain angle, in a certain light.
So maybe this world of controlled euphemism, this half-public semi-privacy, can help me make sense of his character after all. In any case, it’s the world he’s made
Court_1
Jul 15, 2017, 11:40:27 PM7/15/17
to
Excellent article!
It's what I've been saying for years. How can you like this slippery eel who tries on different personas like he's putting on a different pair of underwear every day and craves love and attention like I crave chocolate.
He told us for a year there was nothing seriously wrong with him physically (although that story changed a lot too from various shoulder, elbow, arm
troubles) and now we get this retirement in yet another slam from him because of a chronic and apparently debilitating elbow injury which may or may not require rest and possible surgery? And this is AFTER he played Eastbourne and DC!
Give us a break you phony baloney Tiger Djokovic!
It's what I've been saying for years. How can you like this slippery eel who tries on different personas like he's putting on a different pair of underwear every day and craves love and attention like I crave chocolate.
He told us for a year there was nothing seriously wrong with him physically (although that story changed a lot too from various shoulder, elbow, arm
troubles) and now we get this retirement in yet another slam from him because of a chronic and apparently debilitating elbow injury which may or may not require rest and possible surgery? And this is AFTER he played Eastbourne and DC!
Give us a break you phony baloney Tiger Djokovic!
SliceAndDice
Jul 16, 2017, 12:22:12 AM7/16/17
to
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 16, 2017, 12:52:36 AM7/16/17
to
Lol
Max
Court_1
Jul 16, 2017, 2:21:57 AM7/16/17
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 12:22:12 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> I knew you especially would love it :)
It's like I wrote the words myself! :)
> I knew you especially would love it :)
heyg...@gmail.com
Jul 16, 2017, 9:01:46 AM7/16/17
to
Pelle Svanslos
Jul 18, 2017, 3:35:20 PM7/18/17
to
On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Great read.
NYT psychobabble. However, ...
> Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
... is spot on. Rafa and Rogi should thank their clowny stars.
> Great read.
NYT psychobabble. However, ...
> Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
Court_1
Jul 18, 2017, 4:54:22 PM7/18/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > Great read.
>
> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
It's right on.
> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > Great read.
>
> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
> > Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
>
> ... is spot on. Rafa and Rogi should thank their clowny stars.
Pelle Svanslös
Jul 18, 2017, 5:12:25 PM7/18/17
to
On 18/07/2017 23.54, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
>> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> Great read.
>>
>> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
>
> It's right on.
If you're into rumour mongering and stuff, then I guess so.
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
>> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> Great read.
>>
>> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
>
> It's right on.
>>> Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
>>
>> ... is spot on. Rafa and Rogi should thank their clowny stars.
>
> Oh, the irony! *rolls eyes*
Djok was winning. The only irony possible is that now it's ten times worse.
RG was a joke. Let's not even talk about Wimbledon.
Court_1
Jul 19, 2017, 7:09:46 AM7/19/17
to
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 18/07/2017 23.54, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> >> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>> Great read.
> >>
> >> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
> >
> > It's right on.
>
> If you're into rumour mongering and stuff, then I guess so.
It's rumor-mongering that Djokovic is an attention-seeking, phony chameleon? I don't think so. That's been his MO from the start and it's continued on to the current Tiger Djokovic version which he tries to cover up with his Twitter/Instagram posts of the "perfect family."
> On 18/07/2017 23.54, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> >> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>> Great read.
> >>
> >> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
> >
> > It's right on.
>
> If you're into rumour mongering and stuff, then I guess so.
> >>> Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
> >>
> >> ... is spot on. Rafa and Rogi should thank their clowny stars.
> >
> > Oh, the irony! *rolls eyes*
>
> That's what you think. You were busy singing the clown era tune when
> Djok was winning. The only irony possible is that now it's ten times worse.
>
> RG was a joke. Let's not even talk about Wimbledon.
Pelle Svanslös
Jul 19, 2017, 8:02:24 AM7/19/17
to
On 19/07/2017 14.09, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 18/07/2017 23.54, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
>>>> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>> Great read.
>>>>
>>>> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
>>>
>>> It's right on.
>>
>> If you're into rumour mongering and stuff, then I guess so.
>
> It's rumor-mongering that Djokovic is an attention-seeking, phony chameleon?
Like I said, to each his/her own.
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 18/07/2017 23.54, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:35:20 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
>>>> On 16/07/2017 6.16, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>> Great read.
>>>>
>>>> NYT psychobabble. However, ...
>>>
>>> It's right on.
>>
>> If you're into rumour mongering and stuff, then I guess so.
>
> It's rumor-mongering that Djokovic is an attention-seeking, phony chameleon?
I don't think so. That's been his MO from the start and it's continued
on to the current Tiger Djokovic version which he tries to cover up with
his Twitter/Instagram posts of the "perfect family."
>
>>>>> Djokovic’s collapse helped both Federer and Nadal win majors.
>>>>
>>>> ... is spot on. Rafa and Rogi should thank their clowny stars.
>>>
>>> Oh, the irony! *rolls eyes*
>>
>> That's what you think. You were busy singing the clown era tune when
>> Djok was winning. The only irony possible is that now it's ten times worse.
>>
>> RG was a joke. Let's not even talk about Wimbledon.
>
> Federer and Nadal are currently mopping up due to the same weak field Djokovic was mopping up in from 2014-2016.
>
dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
SliceAndDice
Jul 19, 2017, 8:11:24 AM7/19/17
to
Court_1
Jul 19, 2017, 8:15:17 AM7/19/17
to
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Duh. Djok had Fed & Rafa to play against. A hobbling Rafa is more
> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six years older) and a Nadal out of form. It's exactly the same now for Fedal as it was for Djokovic between 2014-2016 with other Big Four members struggling and no youngsters stepping up.
> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
Pelle Svanslös
Jul 19, 2017, 8:32:00 AM7/19/17
to
On 19/07/2017 15.15, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>> Duh. Djok had Fed & Rafa to play against. A hobbling Rafa is more
>> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
>
> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
> years older) and a Nadal out of form.
Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today. All
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>> Duh. Djok had Fed & Rafa to play against. A hobbling Rafa is more
>> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
>
> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
> years older) and a Nadal out of form.
through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was very very
close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys like Sampras, ...
If the six years older guy can win slams when the cat is away, he
certainly amounts to a more credible opposition than ... Cilic.
> It's exactly the same now for
> Fedal
in the F/SF stage. And Djok got through every time.
Now, there's only 1. It's just a matter of counting.
Court_1
Jul 19, 2017, 10:22:51 AM7/19/17
to
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:32:00 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >
> > I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
> > years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>
> Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today. All
> through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was very very
> close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys like Sampras, ...
Can you read? I'm only talking about 2014-2016. Djokovic only had six years older Federer to deal with. I actually think Federer is playing better tennis in 2017 than he was from 2014-16. Nadal was MIA from 2014-2016.
> >
> > I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
> > years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>
> Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today. All
> through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was very very
> close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys like Sampras, ...
> If the six years older guy can win slams when the cat is away, he
> certainly amounts to a more credible opposition than ... Cilic.
>
> > It's exactly the same now for
> > Fedal
>
> No it's not. When Djok was winning there was at least 2-3 fabbies always
> in the F/SF stage. And Djok got through every time.
>
> Now, there's only 1. It's just a matter of counting.
Pelle Svanslös
Jul 19, 2017, 10:53:51 AM7/19/17
to
On 19/07/2017 17.22, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:32:00 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer
>>> (six years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>>
>> Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today.
>> All through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was
>> very very close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys
>> like Sampras, ...
>
> Can you read?
The 2012-> span refers to the time Rogi has allegedly been close to peak
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:32:00 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer
>>> (six years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>>
>> Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today.
>> All through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was
>> very very close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys
>> like Sampras, ...
>
> Can you read?
form as per Iceberg and Fed. Since it includes the 2014-> span, it's
left up to the reader to understand what's going on.
Up to speed now?
> I'm only talking about 2014-2016. Djokovic only had six
> years older Federer to deal with.
all those finals. Fed's better than the rest now.
What this means is that having to play Fed was tougher than having to
play ... Cilic.
> Again, from 2014-2016, Djokovic only had Federer to deal with. Murray
> was Djokovic's pigeon
bob
Jul 19, 2017, 7:20:32 PM7/19/17
to
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:31:58 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:
>On 19/07/2017 15.15, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Duh. Djok had Fed & Rafa to play against. A hobbling Rafa is more
>>> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
>>
>> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
>> years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>
>Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today. All
>through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was very very
>close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys like Sampras, ...
and bob.
>If the six years older guy can win slams when the cat is away, he
>certainly amounts to a more credible opposition than ... Cilic.
>
>> It's exactly the same now for
>> Fedal
>
>No it's not. When Djok was winning there was at least 2-3 fabbies always
>in the F/SF stage. And Djok got through every time.
>Now, there's only 1. It's just a matter of counting.
yep.
bob
wrote:
>On 19/07/2017 15.15, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:02:24 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Duh. Djok had Fed & Rafa to play against. A hobbling Rafa is more
>>> dangerous than a crying ... Cilic.
>>
>> I'm talking about from 2014-2016,where Djokovic only had Federer (six
>> years older) and a Nadal out of form.
>
>Federer in that timeframe was just as dangerous as he is today. All
>through 2012 -> Iceberg isn't the only one that said Fed was very very
>close to his peak. Among those are Fed himself and guys like Sampras, ...
>If the six years older guy can win slams when the cat is away, he
>certainly amounts to a more credible opposition than ... Cilic.
>
>> It's exactly the same now for
>> Fedal
>
>No it's not. When Djok was winning there was at least 2-3 fabbies always
>in the F/SF stage. And Djok got through every time.
>Now, there's only 1. It's just a matter of counting.
bob
Court_1
Jul 19, 2017, 10:42:55 PM7/19/17
to
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:53:51 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> The 2012-> span refers to the time Rogi has allegedly been close to peak
> form as per Iceberg
As per Iceberg? That's your argument--relying on the opinion of some internet baboon?
> The 2012-> span refers to the time Rogi has allegedly been close to peak
> form as per Iceberg
> and Fed.
When did Fed ever say he was at peak?
> Since it includes the 2014-> span, it's
> left up to the reader to understand what's going on.
>
> Up to speed now?
>
> > I'm only talking about 2014-2016. Djokovic only had six
> > years older Federer to deal with.
>
> Well, Fed was better than the rest then, he was the one Djok smacked in
> all those finals. Fed's better than the rest now.
> What this means is that having to play Fed was tougher than having to
> play ... Cilic.
>
> > Again, from 2014-2016, Djokovic only had Federer to deal with. Murray
> > was Djokovic's pigeon
>
> Andy was also in better form then than now.
Pelle Svanslös
Jul 20, 2017, 5:12:23 AM7/20/17
to
On 20/07/2017 5.42, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:53:51 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>
>> The 2012-> span refers to the time Rogi has allegedly been close to
>> peak form as per Iceberg
>
> As per Iceberg? That's your argument--relying on the opinion of some
> internet baboon?
Broken clocks and all that ...
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:53:51 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>
>
>> The 2012-> span refers to the time Rogi has allegedly been close to
>> peak form as per Iceberg
>
> As per Iceberg? That's your argument--relying on the opinion of some
> internet baboon?
>> and Fed.
>
> When did Fed ever say he was at peak?
delusional. You including, I'd surmise.
>
>> Since it includes the 2014-> span, it's left up to the reader to
>> understand what's going on.
>
>
> Again, I'm only referring to 2014-2016
least subtle of hints.
> where Djokovic had ONLY
> Federer to contend with,
in that period was the one in the finals against Djok. Hence, Fed was
consistently better than "everybody else". The present Djok has trouble
making QFs. Hence, he's part of "everybody else" now.
So, Djok had somebody better than "everybody else" to contend with. Rogi
has ... Cilic.
>> Up to speed now?
>>
>>> I'm only talking about 2014-2016. Djokovic only had six years
>>> older Federer to deal with.
>>
>> Well, Fed was better than the rest then, he was the one Djok
>> smacked in all those finals. Fed's better than the rest now.
>
> Federer is playing better in 2017 than he was 2014-2016 in some ways,
> i.e. more aggressive bh, ros and better mindset. That's why I want to
> see Djokovic make a comeback and play THIS Federer.
guarantee whatsoever that what works against Nadal works against him.
This is a coulda woulda argument.
0 new messages