PDA

View Full Version : 19 quarterfinals in a row for slams


deltox
03-31-2009, 07:42 AM
watched a match on tv this week and the announcer said something that made me think twice and wonder about how valid of a point it was.

"Roger has made 10 straight Semifinals in grand slams, its by far the most dominant and important stat in tennis history"

this statement caught me off guard and im realyl not sure how to wrap my mind around this. what do you guys think. is this really such as important stat.. im totally unsure of its validity.

Lotto
03-31-2009, 07:43 AM
He's made 19 straight Semi-Finals..........not 10 straight Quarter finals.............

dextor
03-31-2009, 07:46 AM
That stat has been overshadowed by his success of 13 grand slam titles, which is a shame really and quite ironic because if he wasn't that successful he still would be considered successful, if you catch my drift.

tudwell
03-31-2009, 07:52 AM
You sure the commentator didn't say something about ten straight finals? Of course, that was halted over a year ago, but Federer's made more than 10 straight semifinals at the slams - 19 to be exact, as Lotto pointed out.

Gorecki
03-31-2009, 08:05 AM
That stat has been overshadowed by his success of 13 grand slam titles, which is a shame really and quite ironic because if he wasn't that successful he still would be considered successful, if you catch my drift.

if he wasnt sucessful he would be sucessfull... is this right?:)

ksbh
03-31-2009, 08:37 AM
ROFL X 20, Sir Gorecki! You should write a book of jokes, my dear friend! :)

if he wasnt sucessful he would be sucessfull... is this right?:)

dextor
03-31-2009, 10:24 AM
if he wasnt sucessful he would be sucessfull... is this right?:)

LOL yes, I meant what I wrote, hence "if you catch my drift".

If you can't understand the literary technique I used to point out the irony I'll help you digest it:

Federer has said that "[he] has created a monster", alluding to the fact that he has been so successful people have extremely high expectations for him; when he reached a semi, two finals, and one GS title in 2008 it almost became unacceptable to some. For any other player it would be magical, for Federer it was lame.

Hence, if he wasn't as successful before, as in not having had 13 GS titles plus other tournament titles, over 200 weeks in #1, his "accomplishments" in recent years (2008 and 2009) would be thought of as successful.

Got it now?

Gorecki
03-31-2009, 10:28 AM
LOL yes, I meant what I wrote, hence "if you catch my drift".

If you can't understand the literary technique I used to point out the irony I'll help you digest it:

Federer has said that "[he] has created a monster", alluding to the fact that he has been so successful people have extremely high expectations for him; when he reached a semi, two finals, and one GS title in 2008 it almost became unacceptable to some. For any other player it would be magical, for Federer it was lame.

Hence, if he wasn't as successful before, as in not having had 13 GS titles plus other tournament titles, over 200 weeks in #1, his "accomplishments" in recent years (2008 and 2009) would be thought of as successful.

Got it now?

Dex. i totally understood what you meant. and you are right in your point of view. i was just having a laugh "with you" as opposite "after you". ok?

dextor
03-31-2009, 10:32 AM
Dex. i totally understood what you meant. and you are right in your point of view. i was just having a laugh "with you" as opposite "after you". ok?

It's all good :)

egn
03-31-2009, 10:34 AM
LOL yes, I meant what I wrote, hence "if you catch my drift".

If you can't understand the literary technique I used to point out the irony I'll help you digest it:

Federer has said that "[he] has created a monster", alluding to the fact that he has been so successful people have extremely high expectations for him; when he reached a semi, two finals, and one GS title in 2008 it almost became unacceptable to some. For any other player it would be magical, for Federer it was lame.

Hence, if he wasn't as successful before, as in not having had 13 GS titles plus other tournament titles, over 200 weeks in #1, his "accomplishments" in recent years (2008 and 2009) would be thought of as successful.

Got it now?

Exactly I think it was Roddick last year who said his bad season would be great for most people. A ton of players noted that it would great to be told you were having an off year and you manage to finish 2 in the world win 4 titles and have a semi in every slam and 3 finals winning 1. The fact is Fed 08 is still better than a lot of past greats season where they were at their best.

CyBorg
03-31-2009, 10:42 AM
watched a match on tv this week and the announcer said something that made me think twice and wonder about how valid of a point it was.

"Roger has made 10 straight Semifinals in grand slams, its by far the most dominant and important stat in tennis history"

That's a questionable thing to say. Tennis has a pretty long history with a lot of dominant players with great achievements.

helloworld
03-31-2009, 10:43 AM
It's a useless stat, really. Even if you make 19 straight semis, but couldn't win any, you're still not going to be an all-time greats. An important stat is an achievement that constitutes a player into an all-time great level.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-05-2009, 11:44 PM
See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3264967&postcount=108 about Ken Rosewall and his 36 semifinals in a row in great events.

Josherer
04-06-2009, 12:02 AM
Woah 19 consecutive Semis.. :O

kimbahpnam
04-06-2009, 12:14 AM
Players would kill to have that kind of stat. It just shows you the level of consistency that Roger has had throughout his career even through now despite the lackluster start of the '09 season (even though he made it to AO finals). It also means when he lost, it was the "big" matches.

iriraz
04-06-2009, 12:21 AM
It's a useless stat, really. Even if you make 19 straight semis, but couldn't win any, you're still not going to be an all-time greats. An important stat is an achievement that constitutes a player into an all-time great level.

Doubtful that any player who makes 19 slam semis would never get any slam.Even having a negative final record he could win a few slams just by experience.This days it`s really hard to get such a record because no matter how good you play u can get an injury and miss or get knocked out early in the slam

deltox
04-06-2009, 02:14 PM
See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3264967&postcount=108 about Ken Rosewall and his 36 semifinals in a row in great events.

how many of his semis were slams? im talking slam semis.

clayman2000
04-06-2009, 02:29 PM
For me this is what has already put Federer ahead of Sampras, Borg etc.
This guy doesnt have bad days early in slams.

asafi2
04-06-2009, 03:16 PM
watched a match on tv this week and the announcer said something that made me think twice and wonder about how valid of a point it was.

"Roger has made 10 straight Semifinals in grand slams, its by far the most dominant and important stat in tennis history"

this statement caught me off guard and im realyl not sure how to wrap my mind around this. what do you guys think. is this really such as important stat.. im totally unsure of its validity.

He made 10 straight slam FINALs...amazing

gj011
04-06-2009, 03:25 PM
Federer has made 19 straight SFs but I have a feeling that this streak is coming to an end this year.

He had also made 10 straight finals in the row, but that streak was stopped by Djokovic on AO 2008. I guess that is one of the reasons why Federer dislikes Djokovic so much.

CyBorg
04-06-2009, 03:28 PM
See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3264967&postcount=108 about Ken Rosewall and his 36 semifinals in a row in great events.

A+ for this.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 04:36 PM
I think all those semis in a row emphasize not only Fed's consistency but also his versatility, the fact that he doesn't really have a "weak" surface, he's excellent on all. For GOAT territory though, I'd still go by the wins.

dincuss
04-06-2009, 04:43 PM
Federer has made 19 straight SFs but I have a feeling that this streak is coming to an end this year.

He had also made 10 straight finals in the row, but that streak was stopped by Djokovic on AO 2008. I guess that is one of the reasons why Federer dislikes Djokovic so much.

No offense, but I think he dislikes the Djoker because he "fakes" a lot.

gj011
04-06-2009, 04:44 PM
No offense, but I think he dislikes the Djoker because he "fakes" a lot.

No offense, but Djokovic does not fake anything.

RCizzle65
04-06-2009, 05:24 PM
No offense, but Djokovic does not fake anything.

I think this guy is right, Djokovic just overexaggerates everything, he may have a minor thing but he turns it into a big problem, I think the only time he really was down was that quarterfinal with Roddick this year at the 2009 Australian Open, bad heat stroke, but that was still his fault due to bad conditioning, the women handled it well, Roddick handled it well, and it was hotter the next day and they handled it well also.

gj011
04-06-2009, 05:55 PM
double post.

gj011
04-06-2009, 05:56 PM
I think this guy is right, Djokovic just overexaggerates everything, he may have a minor thing but he turns it into a big problem, I think the only time he really was down was that quarterfinal with Roddick this year at the 2009 Australian Open, bad heat stroke, but that was still his fault due to bad conditioning, the women handled it well, Roddick handled it well, and it was hotter the next day and they handled it well also.

Your facts are wrong. This is becoming a habit of many Novak haters. They lie, twist the truth and make many wrong assumptions based only on their hate.

First, Djokovic have a real health problem under the extreme head and/or humidity and it is showing a lot recently. Also it is not related to bad conditioning and he is not exaggerating anything.

Second, they closed the roof the next day and days after. This match was played under the highest temperature with the open roof. Novak was shafted pretty bad by organizers bad decisions and double standards on AO.

AprilFool
04-06-2009, 06:10 PM
Your facts are wrong. This is becoming a habit of many Novak haters. They lie, twist the truth and make many wrong assumptions based only on their hate.

First, Djokovic have a real health problem under the extreme head and/or humidity and it is showing a lot recently. Also it is not related to bad conditioning and he is not exaggerating anything.

Second, they closed the roof the next day and days after. This match was played under the highest temperature with the open roof. Novak was shafted pretty bad by organizers bad decisions and double standards on AO.

It's possible. I think he has a genuine breathing problem. And it's hard to fake vomiting. Regarding Federer, I believe the bad blood started when Mrs.Djoker
started making comments to the press during the US Open.

dincuss
04-06-2009, 06:43 PM
No offense, but Djokovic does not fake anything.

Thats why its in quotation marks;)
I dont think he fakes

Mansewerz
04-06-2009, 06:47 PM
Federer has made 19 straight SFs but I have a feeling that this streak is coming to an end this year.

He had also made 10 straight finals in the row, but that streak was stopped by Djokovic on AO 2008. I guess that is one of the reasons why Federer dislikes Djokovic so much.

He disliked him before that, AFAIK.

Btw, you're next post will be 4000!

gj011
04-06-2009, 06:50 PM
Yes you are correct. 4000. Thanks for noticing :)

vtmike
04-06-2009, 06:54 PM
Federer has made 19 straight SFs but I have a feeling that this streak is coming to an end this year.

He had also made 10 straight finals in the row, but that streak was stopped by Djokovic on AO 2008. I guess that is one of the reasons why Federer dislikes Djokovic so much.

Federer disliked Djokovic much before AO '08...so the semi final loss is definitely not the reason he hates him...using that logic Federer should have killed Nadal by now :)

RCizzle65
04-06-2009, 06:58 PM
Your facts are wrong. This is becoming a habit of many Novak haters. They lie, twist the truth and make many wrong assumptions based only on their hate.

First, Djokovic have a real health problem under the extreme head and/or humidity and it is showing a lot recently. Also it is not related to bad conditioning and he is not exaggerating anything.

Second, they closed the roof the next day and days after. This match was played under the highest temperature with the open roof. Novak was shafted pretty bad by organizers bad decisions and double standards on AO.

I don't hate Novak at all, I love watching his game, that doesn't mean he has some gamesmanship problems though. I know he does have health problems, but they haven't really shown up previous years as much as it has this year, at the Australian Open and Miami. It's a shame someone with his talent has problems, I know he does yoga and stuff to try and reduce this, but I still think he exaggerates, like against Robredo at the 2008 US Open

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-06-2009, 11:04 PM
how many of his semis were slams? im talking slam semis.

Rosewall was an amateur until 1956 and was then forbidden to play true Slam amateur tournaments from January 1957 to March 1968 and then he played the first open slam tournament at Roland Garros in May 1968 so he reached the semis from Wimbledon 1954 to Forest Hills 1956 and at Roland in 1968 : it makes "only" 9 times (8 in amateur Slams and 1 in an open Slam) : Wimby 54, Forest 54, Austr 55, Wimby 55, Forest 55, Austr 56, Wimby 56, Forest 56, Roland 68 (he didn't enter the French amateur in 55 and 56).
Therefore he reached consecutively 27 semis in "pro slam events" (3 events each year if we consider Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the US Pro) in a row (from the US Pro in 1957 to Wembley Pro 1967) : he didn't play 5 US Pro (from 1958 to 1962) because in those times there were very few tourneys just before or after the US Pro, and living in Sydney, a trans-pacific and a trans-US travel cost much (in time and money) to Rosewall in the late 50's-early 60's.

Rosewall's record in the amateur ranks isn't worth much because the very best players were the top pros while his 27 pro events semis are almost completely ignored by many in particular because the ATP statistics are so much incomplete : nothing before 1968 and many tourneys forgotten between 1968 and 1970 (and even until the end of 1974).
Do you know for instance that Rosewall beat Laver 4 times consecutively in the French Pro final (from 1963 to 1966 and moreover on indoor wood, the fastest surface ever used in tennis) ? It's an incredible feat. However except some "fools" no one knows about it because it was played in the pro circuit before the open era.

roysid
04-07-2009, 12:05 AM
Since 2004 Wimbledon, Federer has reached 19 straight Slam semi and still going. The previous best is Lendl with 10 straight semis.

Out of 19 he reached final 16 times and won 11 times. Includes 10 straight finals.Amazing consistency in slams.

3 semifinal losses: Safin (2005 AO), Nadal(2005 Fo) And Djokovic (2008 AO)
5 Final losses: All Rafael Nadal (FO 2006,2007,2008), W('08) and AO(2009)

counter_puncher
04-07-2009, 01:41 AM
Federer has made 19 straight SFs but I have a feeling that this streak is coming to an end this year.

He had also made 10 straight finals in the row, but that streak was stopped by Djokovic on AO 2008. I guess that is one of the reasons why Federer dislikes Djokovic so much.

Haha. Always have to find a way to include your great "Djokovic" don't you?

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 02:05 AM
^^^ Djokoivc was quite lucky Federer was sick at that time. Anyway, Federer spanked Djokovic back at Monte Carlo and then at the US Open.

Yes, 19 consecutive Semis is quite amazing and shows Fed's consistency in slams, no matter the surface. If it wasn't for Nadal he'd have about 17 slams now too.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-07-2009, 03:51 AM
...Yes, 19 consecutive Semis is quite amazing and shows Fed's consistency in slams, no matter the surface. If it wasn't for Nadal he'd have about 17 slams now too.

Yeah but if you want to see "true" records then Hugh Lawrence Doherty, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver have won about 20 or even more of events equivalent to the modern Slam tournaments. See for instance http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3098705&postcount=41 to http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3098705&postcount=44 written by SgtJohn who tried to select the 4 most important events of each year (I not always but generally agree his superb list : you can see my own list since 1950 at http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2840980&postcount=45 and http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2840980&postcount=46).
Don't forget that the very best players from the 30's to the 60's were the top pro players who weren't allowed to play a) the Davis Cup which created the Slam tournaments and b) her sons that is these Slam events (and also every competition organised by the I(L)TF and every national association).

One short example to give you an idea about the levels difference between the pros and the amateurs. In 1962 Laver won the Davis Cup with Fraser and Emerson and also won 22 tournaments including the 4 Slams. He turned pro in 1963 and thought that he had improved by 50% in a year however in the pro ranks he didn't win any of the 3 most important pro events in 1963 (Wembley Pro, French Pro, US Pro) all captured by Rosewall the best pro of the time.

So perhaps Federer could have won 17 Slams without Nadal but in this case, Tilden would have won 30 or 40 Slams without Johnston, the Musketeers and Vines, Gonzales would have won the same amount without Kramer and Rosewall (and Laver), idem for Rosewall without Gonzales and Laver and same thing for Laver without Rosewall (and Gonzales). If Connors and McEnroe hadn't played then Borg would have won 4 or 5 US Open. If Borg had been absent Connors would have won 5 Wimbledon. But the facts are there : the pros were better than the amateurs who had the opportunity to play and win Slams whereas the former weren't allowed, Borg was better than Connors at Wimby (and Connors was better at the US Open) and Nadal is better than Federer on slow surfaces (and now on medium surfaces) (fast surfaces almost didn't exist anymore : the "fastest" Slam is the US Open which, according to the ITF (daughter of the ex-ILTF), has a quickness index equal to about 38-39 which is the low limit of the fast surfaces)

veroniquem
04-07-2009, 04:06 AM
^^^ Djokoivc was quite lucky Federer was sick at that time. Anyway, Federer spanked Djokovic back at Monte Carlo and then at the US Open.

Yes, 19 consecutive Semis is quite amazing and shows Fed's consistency in slams, no matter the surface. If it wasn't for Nadal he'd have about 17 slams now too.
If your argument is that AO 2008 should not count because Federer was not "well", then Monte-Carlo should not count either because Djoko was sick. In USO 2008, Djoko struggled all tournament, he was worn out after producing a huge effort at the Olympics. In Canada 2007 and Miami 2009 both players were healthy (and fresh) and Djoko won both matches.

gj011
04-07-2009, 04:44 AM
If your argument is that AO 2008 should not count because Federer was not "well", then Monte-Carlo should not count either because Djoko was sick. In USO 2008, Djoko struggled all tournament, he was worn out after producing a huge effort at the Olympics. In Canada 2007 and Miami 2009 both players were healthy (and fresh) and Djoko won both matches.

Thank you. I was going to post similar comment.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 04:44 AM
If your argument is that AO 2008 should not count because Federer was not "well", then Monte-Carlo should not count either because Djoko was sick. In USO 2008, Djoko struggled all tournament, he was worn out after producing a huge effort at the Olympics. In Canada 2007 and Miami 2009 both players were healthy (and fresh) and Djoko won both matches.

Now it's just the fanboy in you talking: Djokovic struggled in USO 2008 and Fed was fresh and didn't struggle at all in Miami 2009? What a one sided view of things.

Sorry, but in both US Opens (07 and 08) Djoko was just fine. The fact he struggled was his own problem, he was fine pyhsically. Federer has a 7-3 record over Djoko, and in their latest Federer played his worst match I've ever seen him play, and it still took Djokovic 3 sets to beat him. Federer also spanked Djokovic in AO 2007 in straight sets. I predict Djokovic will not be top 3 in the future, and maybe not even top 5. He had a good year in 2008, and he's talented, but he's mentally weak and just about every player is more fit than him. He's not the guy who can outlast Federer or Nadal in a match that goes 4-5 sets.

gj011
04-07-2009, 04:45 AM
Haha. Always have to find a way to include your great "Djokovic" don't you?

It was not my intention, it was in the context of this thread. Also I never said Djokovic is great.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 04:49 AM
Also I forgot to metnion that in the US Open 2008 semifinal Djokovic played fairly well for at least 3 sets. He even won the second set when Fed lost his concentration as usual. But still, everything Djokovic threw at Federer wasn't enough. Fed's B game proved enough for beating Djokovic.

gj011
04-07-2009, 04:51 AM
Now it's just the fanboy in you talking: Djokovic struggled in USO 2008 and Fed was fresh and didn't struggle at all in Miami 2009? What a one sided view of things.

Sorry, but in both US Opens (07 and 08) Djoko was just fine. The fact he struggled was his own problem, he was fine pyhsically. Federer has a 7-3 record over Djoko, and in their latest Federer played his worst match I've ever seen him play, and it still took Djokovic 3 sets to beat him. Federer also spanked Djokovic in AO 2007 in straight sets. I predict Djokovic will not be top 3 in the future, and maybe not even top 5. He had a good year in 2008, and he's talented, but he's mentally weak and just about every player is more fit than him. He's not the guy who can outlast Federer or Nadal in a match that goes 4-5 sets.

Since Djokovic made it to the top 5 their H2H score is 3-3.

In USO 2008 Djokovic was mentally completely out of the match due to all issues with the crowd and Roddick. Go and watch the match again and you will see that. In MC he was sick had fever and strep throat. In USO 2007 it was Djokovic first GS final and he choked badly.

Anyway if any of the top 4 will not be there in the not so distant future it is Federer.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 04:58 AM
LOL he is talking about fanboy talking :roll:

Since Djokovic made it to the top 5 their H2H score is 3-3.

In USO 2008 Djokovic was mentally completely out of the match due to all issues with the crowd and Roddick. Go and watch the match again and you will see that. In MC he was sick had fever and strep throat. In USO 2007 it was Djokovic first GS final and he choked badly.

Anyway if any of the top 4 will not be there in the not so distant future it is Federer. So stop being delusional.

Aghhh....the excuses. Eats you up inside doesn't it? Djokovic had to play his A++ game to beat a sick Federer at the AO 08. I doubt Djokovic will ever beat Federer in a slam again. Federer knows how to play and beat Djokovic. Apparently Roddick and Tsonga know that too now. Djokovic also lost his previous 3 matches with Murray and some to Nadal too. He's falling apart, he's in a slump. Federer is too, but Federer is getting more consistent results. I would give some credit to Djokovic - he seems to have the ability to choose the correct events in which the other top 3 aren't playing at, or not playing him at least (Rome 08, TMC 08, Dubai 09).

gj011
04-07-2009, 05:05 AM
Aghhh....the excuses. Eats you up inside doesn't it? Djokovic had to play his A++ game to beat a sick Federer at the AO 08. I doubt Djokovic will ever beat Federer in a slam again. Federer knows how to play and beat Djokovic. Apparently Roddick and Tsonga know that too now. Djokovic also lost his previous 3 matches with Murray and some to Nadal too. He's falling apart, he's in a slump. Federer is too, but Federer is getting more consistent results. I would give some credit to Djokovic - he seems to have the ability to choose the correct events in which the other top 3 aren't playing at, or not playing him at least (Rome 08, TMC 08, Dubai 09).

Sure Djokovic picked himself who was he going to play in Rome, TMC and Dubai :roll:

Your excuses for Federer's loses to Djokovic are just as bad or good as mine. The fact is that they are 3-3 since Djokovic made it to top 5. So Djokovic knows how to play and beat Federer just as good. What you doubt is irrelevant. I will leave it at that.

Djokovic just beat Tsonga, Murray beat Federer also in their last 5 matches so I don't see your point there, and Roddick is a joke. IW loss was just a bad day, like Federer loss to him in Miami last year, and on AO Djokovic was not beaten by Roddick but by the heat and organizers.

veroniquem
04-07-2009, 05:27 AM
Now it's just the fanboy in you talking: Djokovic struggled in USO 2008 and Fed was fresh and didn't struggle at all in Miami 2009? What a one sided view of things.

Sorry, but in both US Opens (07 and 08) Djoko was just fine. The fact he struggled was his own problem, he was fine pyhsically. Federer has a 7-3 record over Djoko, and in their latest Federer played his worst match I've ever seen him play, and it still took Djokovic 3 sets to beat him. Federer also spanked Djokovic in AO 2007 in straight sets. I predict Djokovic will not be top 3 in the future, and maybe not even top 5. He had a good year in 2008, and he's talented, but he's mentally weak and just about every player is more fit than him. He's not the guy who can outlast Federer or Nadal in a match that goes 4-5 sets.
Federer struggled in Miami 2009 but certainly not because he wasn't fresh.
In AO 2007, Djoko was 19, I don't think this match is terribly relevant. The truth is Djoko can outplay Fed, doesn't mean he always will but he certainly can.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 05:52 AM
Sure Djokovic picked himself who was he going to play in Rome, TMC and Dubai :roll:

Your excuses for Federer's loses to Djokovic are just as bad or good as mine. The fact is that they are 3-3 since Djokovic made it to top 5. So Djokovic knows how to play and beat Federer just as good. What you doubt is irrelevant. I will leave it at that.

Djokovic just beat Tsonga, Murray beat Federer also in their last 5 matches so I don't see your point there, and Roddick is a joke. IW loss was just a bad day, like Federer loss to him in Miami last year, and on AO Djokovic was not beaten by Roddick but by the heat and organizers.

Why can Federer and Nadal, and all the other players in the tour, play in the heat, and Djokovic can't? Does he deserve special treatment that others do not? Everyone's affectd by the conditions, and if you want to be a top player you have to adpat to the condtions on ever tourny.

Also, Roddick might be a joke to you, but currently he has a 2-0 streak over your hero this year.

Federer struggled in Miami 2009 but certainly not because he wasn't fresh.
In AO 2007, Djoko was 19, I don't think this match is terribly relevant. The truth is Djoko can outplay Fed, doesn't mean he always will but he certainly can.

Every player in the top 50 can outplay any other top 50 player if he has a good and/or the other has a really bad day, so your statement tells me nothing. Anyway, I still think a confident Federer will win the majority of the meetings agaisnt Djokovic.

veroniquem
04-07-2009, 05:53 AM
Why can Federer and Nadal, and all the other players in the tour, play in the heat, and Djokovic can't? Does he deserve special treatment that others do not? Everyone's affectd by the conditions, and if you want to be a top player you to adpat to the condtions on ever tourny.

Also, Roddick might be a joke to you, but currently he has a 2-0 streak over your hero this year.



Every player in the top 50 can outplay any other top 50 player if he has a good and/or the other has a really bad day, so your statement tells me nothing. Anyway, I still think a confident Federer will win the majority of the meetings agaisnt Djokovic.
Djokovic can outplay Roger even if Roger is having a good day. That's what I realized when I saw their Canada final in 2007.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 06:04 AM
Djokovic can outplay Roger even if Roger is having a good day. That's what I realized when I saw their Canada final in 2007.

And Federer can outplay Djokovic when Djokovic has a very good day, like in US Open 2007 and 08. In 2008 Djokovic played VERY well, and still lost the match.

gj011
04-07-2009, 06:16 AM
Why can Federer and Nadal, and all the other players in the tour, play in the heat, and Djokovic can't? Does he deserve special treatment that others do not? Everyone's affectd by the conditions, and if you want to be a top player you have to adpat to the condtions on ever tourny.

Also, Roddick might be a joke to you, but currently he has a 2-0 streak over your hero this year.

Heat affects people differently. Many players have problem in the heat, and Djokovic has some health issues with it as well on top of it.
Serena had problems on AO but organizers closed the roof for her. Azarenka too. Even Federer had problems against Berdych. Also on that famous day on USO 2005 when Djokovic was having problems against Monfils, Llodra colapsed after the match and Murray puked on the court. There are many examples.

I am not asking for special treatment, only that there are no double standards and all players are treated equally. I.E. close the roof for everyone, not just Serena, or don't schedule the match at the time Roddick asked for, or have equal number of matches played during night sessions. Djokovic was the only top player who didn't play a single match at night in Miami for example, or he played only one match at night on AO while Federer played 4 or 5, ...

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 09:09 AM
Heat affects people differently. Many players have problem in the heat, and Djokovic has some health issues with it as well on top of it.
Serena had problems on AO but organizers closed the roof for her. Azarenka too. Even Federer had problems against Berdych. Also on that famous day on USO 2005 when Djokovic was having problems against Monfils, Llodra colapsed after the match and Murray puked on the court. There are many examples.

I am not asking for special treatment, only that there are no double standards and all players are treated equally. I.E. close the roof for everyone, not just Serena, or don't schedule the match at the time Roddick asked for, or have equal number of matches played during night sessions. Djokovic was the only top player who didn't play a single match at night in Miami for example, or he played only one match at night on AO while Federer played 4 or 5, ...

I've never seen Serena get special treatment, but I'll take your word for it. I agree all players should be treated equally, but still, at some points Djokovic will have to play under the sun, and I think he needs to adpat if he wants to have more success. Djokovic getting less night matches than other players is wrong IMO.

illkhiboy
04-07-2009, 10:58 AM
Now it's just the fanboy in you talking: Djokovic struggled in USO 2008 and Fed was fresh and didn't struggle at all in Miami 2009? What a one sided view of things.

Sorry, but in both US Opens (07 and 08) Djoko was just fine. The fact he struggled was his own problem, he was fine pyhsically. Federer has a 7-3 record over Djoko, and in their latest Federer played his worst match I've ever seen him play, and it still took Djokovic 3 sets to beat him. Federer also spanked Djokovic in AO 2007 in straight sets. I predict Djokovic will not be top 3 in the future, and maybe not even top 5. He had a good year in 2008, and he's talented, but he's mentally weak and just about every player is more fit than him. He's not the guy who can outlast Federer or Nadal in a match that goes 4-5 sets.

If you want to say Federer was sick at the Australian Open in 2008 (where nobody really noticed his sickness until the public was informed formally a couple months later) then you have to accept their excuses that Djokovic wasn't fit in their Monte Carlo match.

It's true that Djokovic and Federer have had a close head-to-head since Novak became a top player (post their Australian Open meeting in 2007). I will also say that Federer has an edge in their rivalry seeing how he has an edge in their more important meetings (winning US Open '07 and '08 and losing in Australia '08). I think that might have been one of the reasons Federer got so mad at Miami - that his breakdowns were now coming against Novak as well.