PDA

View Full Version : Nadal VS Djokovic was the REAL Final.


NikeWilson
06-09-2008, 11:59 AM
in the semi-final, Djokovic definitely challenged Nadal a lot more than Federer did in the Final.
i think if Djokovic was in the semi against Federer, i think Djokovic could have beaten him. it might've went 5 sets, too. it would've been the best match to watch, since everyone already knew Nadal was gonna win the whole thing anyway. hopefully, next year the draw will be setup so that Fed and Djokovic could meet in the semis. the Battle for Runner-up Match. :D

Mr. Ding
06-09-2008, 12:33 PM
Djokovic is better than Roger now.

Nadal_Freak
06-09-2008, 01:23 PM
Djokovic is better than Roger now.
Agreed. 10 char.

malakas
06-09-2008, 01:34 PM
in the semi-final, Djokovic definitely challenged Nadal a lot more than Federer did in the Final.


Belluci challenged Nadal much more than Djokovic so by your logic that's the REAL final.


:roll:

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 01:36 PM
Belluci challenged Nadal much more than Djokovic so by your logic that's the REAL final.


:roll:
Djoko took 12 games, Bellucci only 9. Djoko is the one who came the closest to challenging Nadal.

malakas
06-09-2008, 01:41 PM
Djoko took 12 games, Bellucci only 9. Djoko is the one who came the closest to challenging Nadal.

number of games alone doesn't show how challenging the match was.Versus Djoker Nadal always looked in control whereas not THAT much versus Bellucci granted the weather conditions might have helped a bit.

zagor
06-09-2008, 01:42 PM
Bellucci is the third best player on clay right now.

deme08
06-09-2008, 01:43 PM
Nadal VS Djokovic was the REAL Final

Really? I thought Federer was the one that played on Sunday...

veroniquem
06-09-2008, 01:45 PM
Really? I thought Federer was the one that played on Sunday...
Don't act silly now, you know very well what he means.

raiden031
06-09-2008, 01:57 PM
Djokovic is better than Roger now.

:cry: agreed :cry:

Guns N Pieces
06-09-2008, 03:18 PM
number of games alone doesn't show how challenging the match was.Versus Djoker Nadal always looked in control whereas not THAT much versus Bellucci granted the weather conditions might have helped a bit.

What match were you watching. Did Nadal look in control during Djokovic's set point?

Djokovic was clearly the second best player of the tournament. He would have beaten Federer with the performance he put in against Nadal and Monfils.

malakas
06-09-2008, 03:20 PM
What match were you watching. Did Nadal look in control during Djokovic's set point?

Djokovic was clearly the second best player of the tournament. He would have beaten Federer with the performance he put in against Nadal and Monfils.

yes,I hoped he would get that set point but I never believed it. And don't forget that you can't speculate like that,because it was first and foremost NADAL who made Federer look so bad on court yesterday.If he had played Djoker it could easily be like night and day.
He got to the final of RG for 3 times in a row HE is clearly the no.2 on clay.

Guns N Pieces
06-09-2008, 03:52 PM
yes,I hoped he would get that set point but I never believed it. And don't forget that you can't speculate like that,because it was first and foremost NADAL who made Federer look so bad on court yesterday.If he had played Djoker it could easily be like night and day.
He got to the final of RG for 3 times in a row HE is clearly the no.2 on clay.

But just look at the shots he was missing. And not just against Nadal. Against Monfils too he was missing easy forehands and volleys. I could name a couple of players who could have beaten Federer with the way he played. Of course not as one-sided as Nadal, but at the very least in a best of five sets match. Gonzalez could have beaten Federer if he continued to play like in the first set (granted, Federer improved his play, but Gonzo droped his significantly).

All in all, Federer has been No. 2 on clay (by a mile), but this year, no. He has had cake walk draws in Hamburg and Roland Garros. Djokovic was playing much better than in Monte Carlo, and Federer much worse. There was only one service break that decided the first set. If you go on to talk about the retirement, then why did Djokovic start fight back against Nadal two breaks of serve down in the third set. I can't think of any other player who would still be fighting, and succesfully come back.

malakas
06-09-2008, 03:57 PM
But just look at the shots he was missing. And not just against Nadal. Against Monfils too he was missing easy forehands and volleys. I could name a couple of players who could have beaten Federer with the way he played. Of course not as one-sided as Nadal, but at the very least in a best of five sets match. Gonzalez could have beaten Federer if he continued to play like in the first set (granted, Federer improved his play, but Gonzo droped his significantly).

All in all, Federer has been No. 2 on clay (by a mile), but this year, no. He has had cake walk draws in Hamburg and Roland Garros. Djokovic was playing much better than in Monte Carlo, and Federer much worse. There was only one service break that decided the first set. If you go on to talk about the retirement, then why did Djokovic start fight back against Nadal two breaks of serve down in the third set. I can't think of any other player who would still be fighting, and succesfully come back.

first of all it's not typical of Nole to keep fighting when he's down,even he's most fanatical fanboys will admit that,but kudos for him for actually playing with a heart for once and maybe he has learned smth
Yes,you see?Against Gonzo Fed in the end raised this game.And against Monfils he did all those errors and he still won,perhaps he felt that there was actually no need to raise his game because he was going to win anyway!
So,Djoker is not Nadal,and Federer even if was down from the beggining would have found the chance to get back in and raise his game and most probably win. You can't do such speculations.If the fact that Fed got to the semis was only a matter of a draw then surely Djoker will find the opportunity in many years to come to prove that HE is the better clay courter.

pow
06-09-2008, 03:59 PM
Belluci was the real final! He's going to be GOAT soon too!

flyer
06-09-2008, 04:01 PM
yes it was actually, djokovic would have beaten federer with releative ease as well

Guns N Pieces
06-09-2008, 04:14 PM
first of all it's not typical of Nole to keep fighting when he's down,even he's most fanatical fanboys will admit that,but kudos for him for actually playing with a heart for once and maybe he has learned smth
Yes,you see?Against Gonzo Fed in the end raised this game.And against Monfils he did all those errors and he still won,perhaps he felt that there was actually no need to raise his game because he was going to win anyway!
So,Djoker is not Nadal,and Federer even if was down from the beggining would have found the chance to get back in and raise his game and most probably win. You can't do such speculations.If the fact that Fed got to the semis was only a matter of a draw then surely Djoker will find the opportunity in many years to come to prove that HE is the better clay courter.

He did not feel he needed to raise his game? The guy was a few points away from losing the fourth set! Clearly he couldnt raise his game this time, and I can't figure out why, since he did so against Montanes and Gonzalez, and played very good against Ancic.

We shall see how the next few years turn out. I think that Djokovic has time on his side to improve on clay. He is good match up against Nadal, with his strong backhand, and unwillingness to play far behind the baseline. I think he will win RG at some point.

daddy
06-09-2008, 04:18 PM
number of games alone doesn't show how challenging the match was.Versus Djoker Nadal always looked in control whereas not THAT much versus Bellucci granted the weather conditions might have helped a bit.

I support you my Greek friend. This is the way I think about this - Nadal Djokvic and Nadal - Fed were a virtual walkovers. If we had Federer - Djokovic it could have been a good match certanly not a loopsided as the others, and it could have been an epic. Outcome unknown but it would be beter for the RG if the draw was like that.

However Nadal proved by beating those guys pretty convincingly along with all the others that he is in his own league so this way it has another historical value. But for us, if we had different draw I am sure we would hav witnessed at least one better semi !

malakas
06-09-2008, 04:33 PM
Yeah,that would at least have made of one really good semi.Instead we got one little interesting semi and two snoozefests.:( Most boring RG I have watched.

Tecnifibre_Rackets
06-09-2008, 04:47 PM
Last time I checked Djoko had 1 slam, while Federer has 12. Argument over.

Nadal_Freak
06-09-2008, 04:54 PM
Last time I checked Djoko had 1 slam, while Federer has 12. Argument over.
Last time I checked, we are in the present. Not the past. The present and future is on Djokovic's side.

Iced_jacob
06-09-2008, 05:20 PM
Yeah,that would at least have made of one really good semi.Instead we got one little interesting semi and two snoozefests.:( Most boring RG I have watched.

Indeed I was expecting that final so much and pooffffff. Just went out of the window like a first round match :(

pow
06-09-2008, 05:34 PM
Last time I checked Djoko had 1 slam, while Federer has 12. Argument over.

Agreed. We tend to forget all of his achievements because it is clay season. Now that that's over with, the rest of the year is what sets Federer apart from the rest of the field.

NikeWilson
06-09-2008, 08:50 PM
yes,I hoped he would get that set point but I never believed it. And don't forget that you can't speculate like that,because it was first and foremost NADAL who made Federer look so bad on court yesterday.If he had played Djoker it could easily be like night and day.
He got to the final of RG for 3 times in a row HE is clearly the no.2 on clay.
no, that all depends on the draw. Federer was lucky he didn't have to face Djokovic in his half. because Djokovic would've kicked his ***.

and btw, i'm ****ed at the people in charge of the French Open because i find it highly disrespectful to not seed Nadal as #1 at this tournament. there comes a time where you have to toss the Ranking System out the window, and go with common sense and common courtesy. there should be a rule that the defending champion should always be seeded #1, no matter what his world ranking is.

carlos djackal
06-10-2008, 03:08 AM
yes it was actually, djokovic would have beaten federer with releative ease as well


agreed 100 percent

cueboyzn
06-10-2008, 04:49 AM
no, that all depends on the draw. Federer was lucky he didn't have to face Djokovic in his half. because Djokovic would've kicked his ***.



Just like at Monte-Carlo, right?

Where he retired like a pansy because he was losing to Fed.

Oh thats right he had a sore throat...

And that was only 3 sets. :twisted:

Face it, Fed would have beaten Joker over 5 sets on clay. Did anyone watch his match with Nadal. Every time a rally went to 10 or 15 shots the guy is hunched over and about ready to collapse between points. And you think he would beat Federer? Got to be the joke of the year pal.

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
06-10-2008, 05:06 AM
Djokovic is better than Roger now.
Djokovic still needs to prove he is better...he beats Federer on clay one time only no?

OrangeOne
06-10-2008, 05:09 AM
Last time I checked.... Djoker quit against Fed when they last played on clay?

Strobe Lights
06-10-2008, 05:31 AM
I love people pulling **** like this out. There was one final and that was it. The only reason Djokovic came close to winning that set was that Nadal for the first time I can ever remember actually lost concentration and stepped down his intensity. He was walking through the match (just like he did with Federer) and at 3-0 in the third he let his guard down.

In what way would Djokovic have destroyed Federer if they met? He was hardly playing his best tennis and last time they met on clay Djokovic retired a set and a break down.

Federer was destroyed by Nadal because Nadal is too good and Federer mentally broke down after years of being owned on clay by him. This wouldn't have happened against anyone else on any other surface, so using that performance to say Djokovic would've beaten him is pointless.

The bias on these boards can be funny at times, but at other times is just embarrassing. Can't people discuss three great talents like Nadal, Djoker and Fed objectively?

ninman
06-10-2008, 06:11 AM
Djokovic would not have defeated Federer because Federer wouldn't have had such a negative attitude when he played him.

NamRanger
06-10-2008, 06:15 AM
I love people pulling **** like this out. There was one final and that was it. The only reason Djokovic came close to winning that set was that Nadal for the first time I can ever remember actually lost concentration and stepped down his intensity. He was walking through the match (just like he did with Federer) and at 3-0 in the third he let his guard down.

In what way would Djokovic have destroyed Federer if they met? He was hardly playing his best tennis and last time they met on clay Djokovic retired a set and a break down.

Federer was destroyed by Nadal because Nadal is too good and Federer mentally broke down after years of being owned on clay by him. This wouldn't have happened against anyone else on any other surface, so using that performance to say Djokovic would've beaten him is pointless.

The bias on these boards can be funny at times, but at other times is just embarrassing. Can't people discuss three great talents like Nadal, Djoker and Fed objectively?


No, because TW posters consist of four categories. Nadaltrolls, Fedtrolls, Djokotrolls, and of course, everyone else that's sane. That last category tends to be a very small minority.

cknobman
06-10-2008, 06:27 AM
Federer was destroyed by Nadal because Nadal is too good and Federer mentally broke down after years of being owned on clay by him. This wouldn't have happened against anyone else on any other surface, so using that performance to say Djokovic would've beaten him is pointless.


Djokovic would not have defeated Federer because Federer wouldn't have had such a negative attitude when he played him.

Agreed. Fed went into the final already knowing the outcome(in his own mind) and gave a very half @ssed effort, which really dissapointed the world.

Fed would not enter the match with Djokovic with that attitude because:
1. Djokovic is not better than Fed on clay (say what you want but he hasnt beaten him yet).
2. Fed has more of a personal point to prove to Djokovic and his family with their bold statements and arrogant attitudes.

I will agree thought that the Nadal/Djokovic match was more effort worthy of a final than Feds match. But really it had little to nothing to do with Djoker being better than Fed on clay.

cueboyzn
06-10-2008, 06:49 AM
Agreed. Fed went into the final already knowing the outcome(in his own mind) and gave a very half @ssed effort, which really dissapointed the world.

Fed would not enter the match with Djokovic with that attitude because:
1. Djokovic is not better than Fed on clay (say what you want but he hasnt beaten him yet).
2. Fed has more of a personal point to prove to Djokovic and his family with their bold statements and arrogant attitudes.

I will agree thought that the Nadal/Djokovic match was more effort worthy of a final than Feds match. But really it had little to nothing to do with Djoker being better than Fed on clay.


I agree 100%. Had Djokovic come through courtesy of some Nadal injury or whatever, Federer would have come out and trashed him in the final. Or run him into a premature retirement just like in Monte Carlo. Because he believes he is superior to Djokovic on clay.

On 2nd thought, strike the "on clay" part. He simply believes he is better. Full stop.

He doesn't believe against Nadal on Clay. Against Nadal He hopes he gets off to a good start and he hopes he can pull it off if he is ahead. That's not belief.

nodjoke46
06-10-2008, 07:28 AM
no, that all depends on the draw. Federer was lucky he didn't have to face Djokovic in his half. because Djokovic would've kicked his ***.

and btw, i'm ****ed at the people in charge of the French Open because i find it highly disrespectful to not seed Nadal as #1 at this tournament. there comes a time where you have to toss the Ranking System out the window, and go with common sense and common courtesy. there should be a rule that the defending champion should always be seeded #1, no matter what his world ranking is.

Eureka! Your last paragraph is totally on point. So if organizers would go with that line of thinking for the rest of the slams Rfed should be seeded #1 at Wimbledon and the US Open.

pow
06-10-2008, 08:01 AM
Djokovic still needs to prove he is better...he beats Federer on clay one time only no?

Nope, he's beaten Fed on hard courts, not on clay.
Last they played on clay, Djokovic quit after being a set and a break down. :evil:

Nadal_Freak
06-10-2008, 08:15 AM
Nope, he's beaten Fed on hard courts, not on clay.
Last they played on clay, Djokovic quit after being a set and a break down. :evil:
He had strep throat. It will be different the next time they play. Djokovic is better than Fed.

skip1969
06-10-2008, 08:46 AM
Last time I checked, we are in the present. Not the past. The present and future is on Djokovic's side.

it doesn't get any more "present" than the rankings, which this week have mr federer number 1, mr nadal number 2, and mr djokovic number 3.

no, that all depends on the draw. Federer was lucky he didn't have to face Djokovic in his half. because Djokovic would've kicked his ***.

hilarious.


and btw, i'm ****ed at the people in charge of the French Open because i find it highly disrespectful to not seed Nadal as #1 at this tournament. there comes a time where you have to toss the Ranking System out the window, and go with common sense and common courtesy. there should be a rule that the defending champion should always be seeded #1, no matter what his world ranking is.

you realize, of course, that everybody uses the rankings to seed, except the all england club, who use their own discretion (cos that's how they roll). the number 1 seed at the other three slams is usually the number 1 player in the world. not the best clay-courter of all time.

zagor
06-10-2008, 09:00 AM
He had strep throat. It will be different the next time they play. Djokovic is better than Fed.

Did his throat bother him when he bageled Murray and Querrey(who beat some good players to reach the quarters)?

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 09:06 AM
Last time I checked Djoko had 1 slam, while Federer has 12. Argument over.

Which is one more than Fed had at his age!

Nadal_Freak
06-10-2008, 10:25 AM
it doesn't get any more "present" than the rankings, which this week have my federer number 1, my nadal number 2, and mr djokovic number 3.

Actually Djokovic has been the best player of the season. Fed is still feeding off points from a year ago. That is why Fed will soon lose his number 1 spot.

cueboyzn
06-10-2008, 12:18 PM
Actually Djokovic has been the best player of the season. Fed is still feeding off points from a year ago. That is why Fed will soon lose his number 1 spot.


Nadal_Freak you are a Fed-hater. :evil:

Of course, it is inevitable that Federer will one day eventually lose the number 1 spot. This does not mean he will not win more Slams. And it will not change the fact he has got the longest unbroken run at the top of the rankings in the history of the game.. which is still counting as we speak...

I have to laught at posts like yours. People like you have been predicting Fed would lose the No.1 ranking for years. So you just predict the same thing year after year.. and even if Fed proved you all wrong 3 years running there will come one year when these "predictions" eventually "come true". and when that happens all the Fed haters will say: look i predicted it!! Its like predicting its going to rain lol.. you can go outside look toward the sky and say: I predict it will rain today! but days go by with no precipitation. But you just keep going out there every day and predicting to whoever will listen that it will rain today.. eventually one day you will have your "prediction" come true.. LOL :twisted:

Dijana Djokovic
06-11-2008, 07:41 AM
I said from paris. the winner of this match wins the trophy.