PDA

View Full Version : Would Djokovic have beaten Nadal at Monte Carlo?


aceX
04-17-2011, 03:55 PM
If Djokovic played against Nadal at Monte Carlo would he have beaten him?

bolo
04-17-2011, 03:58 PM
nah, probably would have injured himself in the process too.

Semi-Pro
04-17-2011, 04:10 PM
Yes, current form Djokovic would have beaten this Nadal at monte carlo (I don't think Nadal really played that well despite winning)

Nadalfan89
04-17-2011, 04:12 PM
Here we go...can't use reality to bash Nadal so we'll use hypotheticals.

GOAT BAAH!!!
04-17-2011, 04:14 PM
Pathetic thread for failed science fiction writers to pontificate on alternate realities.

aldeayeah
04-17-2011, 04:17 PM
If they'd played again at this point, somebody would have hurt himself.

Bryan Swartz
04-17-2011, 04:18 PM
Obviously, this is completely unknowable.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:32 PM
No, because he's injured and fatiqued. Rafa would still have a tough time beating him.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 04:36 PM
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:38 PM
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.

Good point... I'm going to join your side and say that Djokovic would have beaten him.

kishnabe
04-17-2011, 04:39 PM
TBH...Nadal was playing his worst clay court tennis in 3 years and he would have lost to Djokovic( If he played anything like his 2009 clay form).

Then again Nadal could have won.... well we will get to see one clay matchup between Nadoker.

GOAT BAAH!!!
04-17-2011, 04:46 PM
I think if Rod Laver played the Australian this year (at his current age and form with wooden rackets) Djoker would not have won his second major. Nadal would also not have the career slam had Pancho Gonzales been alive and in the U.S Open draw.

Hood_Man
04-17-2011, 04:56 PM
I vote No, I think fatigue would finally have caught up with him.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 04:59 PM
Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay. Fail thread.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 05:01 PM
Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay. Fail thread.

That doesn't mean he's gonna lose every clay match they play from now on.

Antonio Puente
04-17-2011, 05:03 PM
Here we go...can't use reality to bash Nadal so we'll use hypotheticals.

And you're forced to use a guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal on clay. A guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal is literally the best choice for this hypothetical. :) Think about that for a moment.

Murray almost did

Yes, at 5-1 in the 3rd, Nadal fans everywhere were on pins and needles.

bolo
04-17-2011, 05:08 PM
Pathetic thread for failed science fiction writers to pontificate on alternate realities.

lol. OMG, MURRAY made a CC masters SF and took a set off nadal WITH A BROKEN ARM. OMG, what would murray have done WITHOUT A BROKEN ARM. OMG! :)

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 05:14 PM
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.

Actually for the first 2 sets Murray played without pain, and therefore w/o injury and in those 2 sets he only won, one. Then when the pain came back, Rafa fed him a bread stick. So no, an injured Murray didn't almost anything Nadal.

Semi-Pro
04-17-2011, 05:17 PM
lol. OMG, MURRAY made a CC masters SF and took a set off nadal WITH A BROKEN ARM. OMG, what would murray have done WITHOUT A BROKEN ARM. OMG! :)

That's the second time you've said that! So much for innovation :(

eidolonshinobi
04-17-2011, 05:19 PM
I think he might have had a chance, maybe.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 05:26 PM
Didn't happen. We'll just have to wait for the real thing.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:27 PM
And you're forced to use a guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal on clay. A guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal is literally the best choice for this hypothetical. :) Think about that for a moment.



Yes, at 5-1 in the 3rd, Nadal fans everywhere were on pins and needles.

I guess that means Hrbarty would lead the H2H against Nadal if they played 10 more times. :rolleyes:

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:28 PM
Actually for the first 2 sets Murray played without pain, and therefore w/o injury and in those 2 sets he only won, one. Then when the pain came back, Rafa fed him a bread stick. So no, an injured Murray didn't almost anything Nadal.

Wow, clairvoyant much? Kinda like the way Nadal played with no pain against Petz at W10 until he started losing? :)

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:29 PM
lol. OMG, MURRAY made a CC masters SF and took a set off nadal WITH A BROKEN ARM. OMG, what would murray have done WITHOUT A BROKEN ARM. OMG! :)

Agreed!......That is the question!

Omega_7000
04-17-2011, 05:33 PM
And you're forced to use a guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal on clay. A guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal is literally the best choice for this hypothetical. :) Think about that for a moment.


Are you referring to pre-2011 Djokovic or the 2011 King who defeated Nadal twice in finals which he had not pre-2011?

Mustard
04-17-2011, 05:38 PM
Are you referring to pre-2011 Djokovic or the 2011 King who defeated Nadal twice in finals which he had not pre-2011?

At Indian Wells and Miami, hardcourt tournaments where Djokovic has beaten Nadal in the past. Djokovic beat Nadal at 2007 Miami and 2008 Indian Wells, in straight sets, unlike the close Indian Wells and Miami finals of 2011.

Sid_Vicious
04-17-2011, 05:40 PM
Hell no. I can't believe the poll is 50/50.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 05:41 PM
At Indian Wells and Miami, hardcourt tournaments where Djokovic has beaten Nadal in the past. Djokovic beat Nadal at 2007 Miami and 2008 Indian Wells, with one sided scorelines, unlike the close Indian Wells and Miami finals of 2011.

Djokovic was fatiqued and not to mention his knees were troubling him. The surface and the weather also favoured Nadal.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:44 PM
At Indian Wells and Miami, hardcourt tournaments where Djokovic has beaten Nadal in the past. Djokovic beat Nadal at 2007 Miami and 2008 Indian Wells, in straight sets, unlike the close Indian Wells and Miami finals of 2011.

Interesting, because in 2010, Nadal won the USO. Why wasn't he able to do that in 2007 and 2008? Please tell me you understand the gist of my post.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 05:48 PM
Djokovic was fatiqued and not to mention his knees were troubling him. The surface and the weather also favoured Nadal.

Hardcourt favours Djokovic more than Nadal, and Nadal looked pretty fatigued himself at times during those finals.

Interesting, because in 2010, Nadal won the USO. Why wasn't he able to do that in 2007 and 2008? Please tell me you understand the gist of my post.

Nope. Please explain more clearly what your point is, please.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Nope. Please explain more clearly what your point is, please.

Your point was Djoker beating Nadal now is no surprise since he had done it in the past even more easily in fact.

My point is that Nadal is nowhere near the HC player he is now that he was in 2007. Djoker beating the Nadal of now at IW and Miami in 3 sets is much more impressive in actual fact, because Nadal is a beast on HC too NOW. He was not in 2007 by far. Hence the USO analogy. Clear?

Antonio Puente
04-17-2011, 05:57 PM
I guess that means Hrbarty would lead the H2H against Nadal if they played 10 more times. :rolleyes:

You're right, statistically speaking, a 1-3 record for a 17-19 year old on three different surfaces(vs. a player five his elder) is identical to an 0-10 record for one player on one surface vs. an opponent roughly his same age. No holes there.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Your point was Djoker beating Nadal now is no surprise since he had done it in the past even more easily in fact.

My point is that Nadal is nowhere near the HC player he is now that he was in 2007. Djoker beating the Nadal of now at IW and Miami in 3 sets is much more impressive in actual fact, because Nadal is a beast on HC too NOW. He was not in 2007 by far. Hence the USO analogy. Clear?

Nadal is still unpredictable on hardcourt and much more prone to defeats, especially in best of 3 set matches. Beating Nadal on clay is a different ballgame to beating him in Indian Wells and Miami, especially when Djokovic's wins over Nadal in the Indian Wells and Miami finals were 3 set affairs. Nadal did better in both Indian Wells and Miami this year than he did last year, yet it scarcely matters when it comes to Nadal's form on the clay-courts.

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 05:59 PM
Wow, clairvoyant much? Kinda like the way Nadal played with no pain against Petz at W10 until he started losing? :)

Not at all. I believe that's what Murray said in his presser as well. As well as a lot of the commentators, etc. He was feeling pain before the match, and got cortisone injection in his elbow to get rid of the pain. But it started to wear out by the end of the second set/beg of 3rd. Which is why he asked for a trainer then. This ain't my story it's what he has said and has been reported. When I say he wasn't injured in the first two sets, I meant as in he didn't feel significant pain. Because at the end of the day it only matters how the injury hindered the athlete. In his case it didn't hit him till set 3. As for Nadal's medical issues, no point bringing it up here, because it's not what we are discussing. I have no doubt that Murray has shoulder issues, but in those first two sets he played close to his best.
Not to mention, regardless of whether or not he was injured, he did not come close to beating Nadal. He took a set off of him which is commendable, but that's it really.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:00 PM
You're right, statistically speaking, a 1-3 record for a 17-19 year old on three different surfaces(vs. a player five his elder) is identical to an 0-10 record for one player on one surface vs. an opponent roughly his same age. No holes there.

LOL, so now you're separating out Nadal's early years. Yeah and Djoker last year is playing at the same level he is now. Get a life.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:02 PM
Nadal is still unpredictable on hardcourt and much more prone to defeats, especially in best of 3 set matches. Beating Nadal on clay is a different ballgame to beating him in Indian Wells and Miami, especially when Djokovic's wins over Nadal in the Indian Wells and Miami finals were 3 set affairs. Nadal did better in both Indian Wells and Miami this year than he did last year, yet it scarcely matters when it comes to Nadal's form on the clay-courts.

I agree they are different ballgames. And Djoker will win them all. Last year Nadal was coming off an injury was he not? Therefore it's not surprise he did better this year. Nadal's form on clay indicates that Murray could have taken him out were it not for an elbow injury. Murray is not Djoker. Djoker would have been relentless and pounded Nadal.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:03 PM
Not at all. I believe that's what Murray said in his presser as well. As well as a lot of the commentators, etc. He was feeling pain before the match, and got cortisone injection in his elbow to get rid of the pain. But it started to wear out by the end of the second set/beg of 3rd. Which is why he asked for a trainer then. This ain't my story it's what he has said and has been reported. When I say he wasn't injured in the first two sets, I meant as in he didn't feel significant pain. Because at the end of the day it only matters how the injury hindered the athlete. In his case it didn't hit him till set 3. As for Nadal's medical issues, no point bringing it up here, because it's not what we are discussing. I have no doubt that Murray has shoulder issues, but in those first two sets he played close to his best.
Not to mention, regardless of whether or not he was injured, he did not come close to beating Nadal. He took a set off of him which is commendable, but that's it really.

In other words if Murray was not injured at all, Nadal would have been toast. Cortisone is not a magic bullet.

bolo
04-17-2011, 06:03 PM
Not at all. I believe that's what Murray said in his presser as well. As well as a lot of the commentators, etc. He was feeling pain before the match, and got cortisone injection in his elbow to get rid of the pain. But it started to wear out by the end of the second set/beg of 3rd. Which is why he asked for a trainer then. This ain't my story it's what he has said and has been reported. When I say he wasn't injured in the first two sets, I meant as in he didn't feel significant pain. Because at the end of the day it only matters how the injury hindered the athlete. In his case it didn't hit him till set 3. As for Nadal's medical issues, no point bringing it up here, because it's not what we are discussing. I have no doubt that Murray has shoulder issues, but in those first two sets he played close to his best.
Not to mention, regardless of whether or not he was injured, he did not come close to beating Nadal. He took a set off of him which is commendable, but that's it really.

That's A WIN! for fed fanboys against nadal....and djokovic. :) They are happy if federer can get a set off nadal and djokovic these days. :)

NadalAgassi
04-17-2011, 06:04 PM
Nadal is still unpredictable on hardcourt and much more prone to defeats, especially in best of 3 set matches. Beating Nadal on clay is a different ballgame to beating him in Indian Wells and Miami, especially when Djokovic's wins over Nadal in the Indian Wells and Miami finals were 3 set affairs. Nadal did better in both Indian Wells and Miami this year than he did last year, yet it scarcely matters when it comes to Nadal's form on the clay-courts.

Djokovic also while good on all surfaces is a hard court specialist to a large degree. His results on grass and clay are good but dont even approach his results on hard courts. And while there are hardly any players who can beat him on hard courts, there are quite a few who can beat him on clay or grass. David Ferrer for instance owns Djokovic on clay, Tommy Haas owns Djokovic on grass, and at recent French and Wimbledon events he has lost to Safin, Kohlschreiber, Melzer, Haas, and Berdych.

So Djokovic hard courts >>> Djokovic on clay
Nadal on clay >>> Nadal on hard courts

And Djokovic barely won the two meetings on hard courts, and has recent losses on the surface too, so what are his chances on clay even at this point. Needless to say I voted no.

The Djoker
04-17-2011, 06:05 PM
If he was in form, then I believe he would have beaten Nadal, but he didn't play. Nadal won and there is no arguing that. As my username may suggest, I am a Djokovic fan, and there are somethings I don't really like about Nadal, but if you would have asked me before the tournament if Djokovic would have been a threat to Nadal taking the title, I would have said probably, no. But, after seeing how Nadal played, I think Djoker would have had him. But, then again, that would be a parallel universe in which Novak was in the tournament, and Nadal could have played lights out and wiped the floor with all competition, including Djoker....

MichaelNadal
04-17-2011, 06:10 PM
And you're forced to use a guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal on clay. A guy who is 0-10 vs. Nadal is literally the best choice for this hypothetical. :) Think about that for a moment.



Yes, at 5-1 in the 3rd, Nadal fans everywhere were on pins and needles.

Lol get em :)

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:11 PM
I agree they are different ballgames. And Djoker will win them all.

A very bold prediction when only 3 players (Federer, Ferrero, Soderling) have beaten Nadal on clay since the 11th April 2005.

Last year Nadal was coming off an injury was he not?

That's correct, we can say that about last year. On the other hand, we can also say that this year, Nadal was hampered by a cold he got in Doha and then pulling his hamstring during the Australian Open, which wrecked any chances he had of holding all 4 majors at the same time.

Therefore it's not surprise he did better this year. Nadal's form on clay indicates that Murray could have taken him out were it not for an elbow injury. Murray is not Djoker. Djoker would have been relentless and pounded Nadal.

Nadal's form was off against Murray, but he still won the third set, 6-1. Champions find a way to win matches when they are playing badly. The ability to win matches when you're playing badly seperates the champions from the rest. When Murray plays badly, as we saw in Indian Wells and Miami, it's an ugly sight. When Nadal plays badly, he's still able to breadstick the world number 4 in a decisive set.

oscar_2424
04-17-2011, 06:12 PM
Chocovic will Never beat Rafa on clay.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:14 PM
Nadal's form was off against Murray, but he still won the third set, 6-1. Champions find a way to win matches when they are playing badly. The ability to win matches when you're playing badly seperates the champions from the rest. When Murray plays badly, as we saw in Indian Wells and Miami, it's an ugly sight. When Nadal plays badly, he's still able to breadstick the world number 4 in a decisive set.

Nadal's didn't win that match, Murray lost it because of the elbow pain. All of a sudden Murray loses 6-1? He had the momentum. He lost it. Nadal won by default.

MichaelNadal
04-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Nadal's didn't win that match, Murray lost it because of the elbow pain. All of a sudden Murray loses 6-1? He had the momentum. He lost it. Nadal won by default.

http://cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/112010/kombat-bush.gif

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Nadal's didn't win that match, Murray lost it because of the elbow pain. All of a sudden Murray loses 6-1? He had the momentum. He lost it. Nadal won by default.

Oh, not this again. Nadal won the match 6-4, 2-6, 6-1. There it is, in black and white.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:19 PM
Oh, not this again. Nadal won the match 6-4, 2-6, 6-1. There it is, in black and white.

Oh, not this again. Murray lost the match 4-6, 6-2, 1-6. There it is, in black and white.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:20 PM
Oh, not this again. Murray lost the match 4-6, 6-2, 1-6. There it is, in black and white.

Same difference.

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 06:21 PM
In other words if Murray was not injured at all, Nadal would have been toast. Cortisone is not a magic bullet.

Considering you live in a parallel universe where Novak plays like a beast in MC, I am not surprised that, that is the conclusion you drew from my post. Ofc cortisone is not a magic bullet, that's why it started wearing out in set 3.

Unless of course you want to go the route where we talk about how Murray is a cheater? Where he was in pain the whole match but only decided to call the trainer when things were looking bad for him in the 3rd set. But let's not go there because neither you nor I know the truth.


LOL bolo, that's harsh!

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:23 PM
Same difference.

Not at all. That's like saying a retirement is the same thing as losing in a 5th set tiebreaker.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:25 PM
Considering you live in a parallel universe where Novak plays like a beast in MC, I am not surprised that, that is the conclusion you drew from my post. Ofc cortisone is not a magic bullet, that's why it started wearing out in set 3.

Unless of course you want to go the route where we talk about how Murray is a cheater? Where he was in pain the whole match but only decided to call the trainer when things were looking bad for him in the 3rd set. But let's not go there because neither you nor I know the truth.


LOL bolo, that's harsh!

Parallel universes have yet to be proven. Cortisone wearing out may have affected him in the first set too. We just don't know.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Not at all. That's like saying a retirement is the same thing as losing in a 5th set tiebreaker.

This is surely some sort of joke? :lol:

1. Nadal beating Murray 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, means that Murray lost to Nadal 4-6, 6-2, 1-6
2. Retirement is not the same as losing in a fifth set tiebreaker.

GOAT BAAH!!!
04-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Parallel universes have yet to be proven. Cortisone wearing out may have affected him in the first set too. We just don't know.

Back to reality.

http://www.sportsencounter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nadal-041.jpg

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:27 PM
What we do know is that had Nadal been the one who needed cortisone, there would have been 6 threads about it making excuses for the loss. You cannot deny that.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:28 PM
This is surely some sort of joke? :lol:

1. Nadal beating Murray 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, means that Murray lost to Nadal 4-6, 6-2, 1-6
2. Retirement is not the same as losing in a fifth set tiebreaker.

You once again have not picked up on the analogy. Sadly.

Antonio Puente
04-17-2011, 06:30 PM
LOL, so now you're separating out Nadal's early years.

You missed the point. In this debate, Nadal and Djokovic are roughly the same age.

Yeah and Djoker last year is playing at the same level he is now.

Djokovic hasn't played a clay match yet, so how would you know? He could lose in Belgrade. You do realize the hard court game and clay game are two different animals, right? Yes, Djokovic did beat Nadal in a hard court 1000, but that's something he's done regularly over the years. That's not news. In the past, beating Nadal on a hard court has never helped Djokovic vs. Nadal when it comes to clay, so why would it now?

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:32 PM
What we do know is that had Nadal been the one who needed cortisone, there would have been 6 threads about it making excuses for the loss. You cannot deny that.

Okay, but a loss is a loss. I've never understood why some people think a win or loss can only be "fair" if both players say they are 100% and that a win is somehow "discredited" if the loser is injured. I've never, ever subscribed to this theory. The way I see it, as soon as the match starts, it's one player against the other and their job is to beat their opponent on the court, whatever shape either player is in. A retirement is like the loser submitting.

If we take Ferrer's win over Nadal in the 2011 Australian Open quarter final. It's obvious that Nadal pulled his hamstring and was injured, but Ferrer still beat Nadal in straight sets and I don't see it as any sort of "tainted" victory for Ferrer.

Omega_7000
04-17-2011, 06:33 PM
At Indian Wells and Miami, hardcourt tournaments where Djokovic has beaten Nadal in the past. Djokovic beat Nadal at 2007 Miami and 2008 Indian Wells, in straight sets, unlike the close Indian Wells and Miami finals of 2011.

The point is that he was never able to beat Nadal in a final pre-2011. Since he has overcome that hurdle (twice), why can't he overcome the hurdle of beating Nadal on clay. It's all mental for Djokovic esp since his game matches well against Nadal unlike Fed.

MichaelNadal
04-17-2011, 06:34 PM
Okay, but a loss is a loss. I've never understood why some people think a win or loss can only be "fair" if both players say they are 100% and that a win is somehow "discredited" if the loser is injured. I've never, ever subscribed to this theory. The way I see it, as soon as the match starts, it's one player against the other and their job is to beat their opponent on the court, whatever shape either player is in. A retirement is like the loser submitting.

If we take Ferrer's win over Nadal in the 2011 Australian Open quarter final. It's obvious that Nadal pulled his hamstring and was injured, but Ferrer still beat Nadal in straight sets and I don't see it as any sort of "tainted" victory.

Please Mustard..... don't feed the trolls.

Antonio Puente
04-17-2011, 06:35 PM
Nadal's didn't win that match, Murray lost it because of the elbow pain.

I'm just glad Murray's elbow was healthy enough so he could pick up his breadstick and eat it in the 3rd.

tlm
04-17-2011, 06:35 PM
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.

Ya losing 6-1 in the 3rd set is real close.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:36 PM
You missed the point. In this debate, Nadal and Djokovic are roughly the same age.



Djokovic hasn't played a clay match yet, so how would you know? He could lose in Belgrade. You do realize the hard court game and clay game are two different animals, right? Yes, Djokovic did beat Nadal in a hard court 1000, but that's something he's done regularly over the years. That's not news. In the past, beating Nadal on a hard court has never helped Djokovic vs. Nadal when it comes to clay, so why would it now?

Age is meaningless. Nadal could lose the FO, so what? Djokovic beat Nadal twice on a slow HC with Nadal playing the best tennis of his life. In the past Nadal was not as good on HC.

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 06:36 PM
What we do know is that had Nadal been the one who needed cortisone, there would have been 6 threads about it making excuses for the loss. You cannot deny that.

So why don't you go make six threads about Murray losing cuz he was injured? Why are you dragging Djokovic into the picture? Get your story straight! Or are you just in the mood to argue?

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:37 PM
Okay, but a loss is a loss. I've never understood why some people think a win or loss can only be "fair" if both players say they are 100% and that a win is somehow "discredited" if the loser is injured. I've never, ever subscribed to this theory. The way I see it, as soon as the match starts, it's one player against the other and their job is to beat their opponent on the court, whatever shape either player is in. A retirement is like the loser submitting.

If we take Ferrer's win over Nadal in the 2011 Australian Open quarter final. It's obvious that Nadal pulled his hamstring and was injured, but Ferrer still beat Nadal in straight sets and I don't see it as any sort of "tainted" victory for Ferrer.

Hey I'm not saying the loss isn't a loss. Murray lost, period. But if you want to live by them rules, then don't you dare speak of Nadal's "form" not being to par against Murray. Nadal is Nadal. There is no concept of form. He can only play what he is.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:38 PM
I'm just glad Murray's elbow was healthy enough so he could pick up his breadstick and eat it in the 3rd.

Yeah unlike Nadal who chickened out of the final set against Murray at AO10 :).

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:39 PM
Ya losing 6-1 in the 3rd set is real close.

That's the point. Murray just won the previous set 6-2, momentum on his side.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 06:39 PM
Darn, all this because Nadal won a tournament? Now Murray is a martyr who was disadvantaged because of his shoulder? According to some Djokovic should have come out of the stands and beat Nadal.

Serious grasping in this thread.

The match is over. Let's all move on to Barcelona and Belgrade. There's a lot of exciting tennis to come to continue dwelling on one result is silly.

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 06:39 PM
I'm just glad Murray's elbow was healthy enough so he could pick up his breadstick and eat it in the 3rd.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. This is epic.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:40 PM
So why don't you go make six threads about Murray losing cuz he was injured? Why are you dragging Djokovic into the picture? Get your story straight! Or are you just in the mood to argue?

Huh? What are you on? This thread is about Djoker beating Nadal and Murray comes into the picture because we all know what a failure he is, YET he still took Nadal to 3 sets. Hence Djoker would have lambasted him.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:42 PM
Hey I'm not saying the loss isn't a loss. Murray lost, period. But if you want to live by them rules, then don't you dare speak of Nadal's "form" not being to par against Murray. Nadal is Nadal. There is no concept of form. He can only play what he is.

Nadal's form against Murray was below par and Murray did feel his injury late in the second set/early in the third set, which is why he got more painkillers. This doesn't change the fact that Nadal still won. Nadal won when under the cosh, Murray didn't.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:47 PM
Nadal's form against Murray was below par and Murray did feel his injury late in the second set/early in the third set, which is why he got more painkillers. This doesn't change the fact that Nadal still won. Nadal won when under the cosh, Murray didn't.

Of course it doesn't change any fact, who's arguing that? The point is for making predictions, one has to look at the factors in the match and forecast based on that. Murray would have made it a much closer match had he not had an elbow injury. If you don't want to accept that, then there was no problem with Nadal's form whatsoever.

nadalbestclass
04-17-2011, 06:48 PM
Huh? What are you on? This thread is about Djoker beating Nadal and Murray comes into the picture because we all know what he failure he is, YET he still took Nadal to 3 sets. Hence Djoker would have lambasted him.

Oh okay. It all makes sense now. :roll:

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:48 PM
Oh okay. It all makes sense now. :roll:

Don't worry it takes a while for some people, specially the *********s. But you'll get better at it ;)

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:51 PM
Of course it doesn't change any fact, who's arguing that? The point is for making predictions, one has to look at the factors in the match and forecast based on that. Murray would have made it a much closer match had he not had an elbow injury. If you don't want to accept that, then there was no problem with Nadal's form whatsoever.

Ah, so we're back to the alternative dimension where Murray is 100% and playing awesome tennis in that semi final while Nadal is playing poorly. I couldn't possibly comment on this match because I have never travelled sideways in time before, so I haven't seen the match. My apologies ;)

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:53 PM
Ah, so we're back to the alternative dimension where Murray is all healthy and playing awesome tennis in that semi final while Nadal is playing poorly. I couldn't possibly comment on this match because I have never travelled sideways in time before, so I haven't seen the match. My apologies ;)

What are you arguing against? I'm saying Djoker would have beaten Nadal. You're saying predictions such as those are stupid since they are not fact. You only live in facts. So why even post in this thread?

Mustard
04-17-2011, 06:58 PM
What are you arguing against? I'm saying Djoker would have beaten Nadal. You're saying predictions such as those are stupid since they are not fact. You only live in facts. So why even post in this thread?

Right, now I'm confused. Are you trying to say that debating in facts is wrong and that we should instead debate according to the fictional whims of different posters' minds? :confused:

GOAT BAAH!!!
04-17-2011, 06:59 PM
Congrats to Murray for fighting through his debilitating arm injury to win the Monte Carlo Masters 1000 7 years in a row. Amazing achievement.

Bravo to Nole for claiming the Monte Carlo title for the 7th straight year ;fighting through adversity and winning today without even playing the tournament is a GOAT-worthy feat.

These two insurmountable clay champions have elevated the game to olympian heights.

Cheers.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F4d91iPv3Hg/TasE5QUtwaI/AAAAAAAAPr4/6y5VmK7FuIA/s1600/Nadal_Monte-carlo-2011.jpg

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 07:00 PM
Right, now I'm confused. Are you trying to say that debating in facts is wrong and that we should instead debate according to the fictional whims of different posters' minds? :confused:

No you are definitely confused. Read the thread title again, it has nothing to do with fact obviously, no?

p.s. generally one cannot debate facts.

li0scc0
04-17-2011, 07:05 PM
No, Djokovic would not have beaten Nadal, because Djokovic would not have beaten Ferrer to get to Nadal.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 07:06 PM
No you are definitely confused. Read the thread title again, it has nothing to do with fact obviously, no?

p.s. generally one cannot debate facts.

The facts are that Djokovic has beaten Nadal in hardcourt masters tournaments over many years (since 2007) and has never beaten Nadal on clay. Djokovic has beaten Nadal easier in past years at Indian Wells and Miami than he did in the 2011 finals, yet it made little difference when it came to the clay-court tournaments. If we take 2010 Monte Carlo, Djokovic lost to Verdasco in the semi finals before Nadal beat Verdasco in the final for the loss of just 1 game. We need to see Djokovic in action on the clay this year before we can properly access what sort of form he's in. And even if Djokovic does very well and, say, beats Nadal in either Madrid or Rome, the French Open is a different matter because of the best of 5 sets format.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 07:10 PM
The facts are that Djokovic has beaten Nadal in hardcourt masters tournaments over many years (since 2007) and has never beaten Nadal on clay. Djokovic has beaten Nadal easier in past years at Indian Wells and Miami than he did in the 2011 finals, yet it made little difference when it came to the clay-court tournaments. If we take 2010 Monte Carlo, Djokovic lost to Verdasco in the semi finals before Nadal beat Verdasco in the final for the loss of just 1 game. We need to see Djokovic in action on the clay this year before we can properly access what sort of form he's in. And even if Djokovic does very well and, say, beats Nadal in either Madrid or Rome, the French Open is a different matter because of the best of 5 sets format.

You clearly do not understand the point of this thread. The question is WOULD Djokovic have beaten Nadal at MC2011? In your world this did not occur since Djoker did not play and therefore it's pointless making any conjectures at all. So why are you even posting here? Just sit in the corner and keep repeating the FACT that Nadal won it.

GOAT BAAH!!!
04-17-2011, 07:22 PM
Such philosophical thinking here about the illusory nature of perceived realities....

I got it.

If Fred beat Djoker at the U.S Open semi would Novak have won the Davis Cup matches and paved the way for his 2011 form?

Would Roger have retired after losing to Nadal in the U.S Open final?


all we are is dust in the wind.

Sincerely,

Soren Kierkegaard.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/SPORT/tennis/04/17/tennis.nadal.ferrer.fed.cup/t1larg.kingraf.gi.jpg

babbette
04-17-2011, 07:23 PM
Nope!...................

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 07:27 PM
Nope!...................

Now there's a passionate person who has some keen foresight!

aceX
04-17-2011, 07:31 PM
Man. Making this thread makes me realise the amount of cry babies there are on this forum.

I asked this question to promote discussion, not to bash Nadal. I'm actually a fan of Rafael and consider his humility to be genuine.

Personally, I thought it was quite an interesting question (Would Djokovic have won?). Djokovic has been playing great and has beaten Nadal in their last two meetings.

People are saying "Djokovic was injured of coz he wud have lost LOL idiot fail" but I don't believe Djokovic is actually injured. I do think his knee is hurting but it is probably more of a tactical scheduling decision to skip monte carlo. I think his knee would be hurting but he would have still made the SFs.

What's with people saying 'it didn't happen so this thread is a fail'? I know it didn't happen. I know it is a 'what if' hypothetical question. If you don't want to think about and answer a hypothetical question, why bother posting in this thread?

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 07:39 PM
What's with people saying 'it didn't happen so this thread is a fail'? I know it didn't happen. I know it is a 'what if' hypothetical question. If you don't want to think about and answer a hypothetical question, why bother posting in this thread?

This..................

single_handed_champion
04-17-2011, 08:06 PM
Well, hypothetical question as it is, sensible people do tend to let past history inform their opinions. Else, it is a free-for-all, and anybody who disputes any contention whatsoever is a prime ***.

Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay, Nadal has been virtually unbeatable on clay for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Djokovic repeatedly on hardcourts in the past (even more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Rafa on clay. So, NO.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 08:13 PM
Before the semi, NO ONE, absolutely no one would have said Murray would have taken a set from Nadal. Especially given his inflamed elbow. And pretty easily at that, 6-2!

oy vey
04-17-2011, 08:33 PM
Murray can't be that injured as he is already in Barcelona hitting balls.:)

gio
04-17-2011, 08:33 PM
I think even an injured/fatigued Djoker would have taken out Nadal, as injured Murray almost did.

Sure, Murray "almost" beat Nadal. A truly delusional comment.

The 3rd set was 6-1 Nadal. Wow. That was so-o-o-o-o-o close. I was biting my nails right up until Andy got one freaking game. A barn-burner.

Every time I come to these message boards hoping to find an intelligent comment, there are none to be found.

Hypothetical "what if" threads are absurd.

Tennis sensation
04-17-2011, 08:35 PM
No.

But one of them would have got injured.

TennisFan3
04-17-2011, 08:45 PM
If Djokovic played against Nadal at Monte Carlo would he have beaten him?

Against the 2011 MC SF and F Nadal, Djokovic would MOST DEFINITELY have a shot. And a good one at that. Still it would probably be an epic, Miami 2011/Madrid 2009 type battle. But Djokovic could have been the MC champion.

Still, I don't expect Nadal to continue playing the crap pusher tennis (he is right now) for the rest of the season. I mean let's fact it - is it humanely possible for Nadal to play any worse? This version of Nadal even makes the 2009 clay Rafa look like a GOD. And that's saying a lot obviously.

If Nadal raises his game, and he should, he will have an edge over Djokovic without question. But with the current one, all bets are off..

The-Champ
04-17-2011, 10:52 PM
It depends on what kind of djoker shows up.

okdude1992
04-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Well, hypothetical question as it is, sensible people do tend to let past history inform their opinions. Else, it is a free-for-all, and anybody who disputes any contention whatsoever is a prime ***.

Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay, Nadal has been virtually unbeatable on clay for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Djokovic repeatedly on hardcourts in the past (even more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Rafa on clay. So, NO.

+1 (10 characters)

Murrayfan31
04-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Sure, Murray "almost" beat Nadal. A truly delusional comment.

The 3rd set was 6-1 Nadal. Wow. That was so-o-o-o-o-o close. I was biting my nails right up until Andy got one freaking game. A barn-burner.

Every time I come to these message boards hoping to find an intelligent comment, there are none to be found.

Hypothetical "what if" threads are absurd.
Murray was robbed in that first set. Nadal's shot was out. If Murray found a way to win that first set, Nadal probably loses. So it was close. After the first set, Nadal had a clear advantage.

mcr619619
04-17-2011, 11:05 PM
nahhh...NAd's clay court game can DOMINATE djoker, but who knows, djoker is clicking right now

lemon
04-18-2011, 12:54 AM
The New King is not going to lose a match in 2011, thus the answer is simple-- he would have swept the court with Nadal if he honoured us by showing up in Monte Carlo. Nadal's got lucky once again, never in doubt.

Heracles
04-18-2011, 01:09 AM
Nadal would have won and this is not really debatable.

Nadal is 9-0 on clay against Djokovic.

Nadal almost beat Djokovic in Miami on Djokovic best surface. He would have won on clay.

MichaelNadal
04-18-2011, 01:38 AM
The New King is not going to lose a match in 2011, thus the answer is simple-- he would have swept the court with Nadal if he honoured us by showing up in Monte Carlo. Nadal's got lucky once again, never in doubt.

Another cockroach creeping from out of the crack.

ananda
04-18-2011, 05:59 AM
No. The "New King" would not have reached the final. He would have fallen to Ferrer or Murray.

rafan
04-18-2011, 06:07 AM
Well as and ardent fan of Rafa i had to ask myself this question 'if'. I thought he looked nervous at his press conference after the Murray match but that maybe just me. I think Murray was a surprise after the bad way he has been playing lately and perhaps Rafa thought he was going to be a walkover. His service game was not good - but there have been matches throughout his career when I have put my head in my hands and asked why does he serve so badly - yet he wins. Until he beats Djoko on clay only then will I be happy!

Omega_7000
04-18-2011, 06:13 AM
Another cockroach creeping from out of the crack.

More people following your lead?

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 06:26 AM
More people following your lead?

Yeah what's the deal with insulting people just because they are Djokovic fans??????

jack_kramer
04-18-2011, 06:35 AM
He may have won but he would have blown-out his left knee in the process and rendered unfit to play until the N. American HC season.

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 07:21 AM
Here we go...can't use reality to bash Nadal so we'll use hypotheticals.

When Djokovic falls apart during the clay court season, loses to Federer at Wimbledon, retires from every tournament in the summer heat and then starts to pick up again during AO 2012, the cycle will be complete and will start all over again.

The Djokovic cycle is a beautiful thing.

Don't worry guys. Just get through this and then it's Indian Wells and then some other garbage and then CLAY SEASON WHERE THE SPANISH BULL DESTROYS ALL WHO CROSS HIS PATH. HE WILL THEN CLAIM HIS 10TH GRANDSLAM AND THEN MOVE ON TO CLAIM HIS 11TH AT WIMBLEDON.

and then lose in quarters or somethin at USO...

He would be a slight favorite, but I'd rather him play a guy like Djokovic where he's a big favorite.

Exactly. Federer steam rolled through a bunch of ******s to win his slams. Nadal had to at least slay the guy who slayed ******s, making his grand slams more legit.



You come up with some real crazy things. And then if someone says something about Ralph, it's hypothetical? You are full of excuses boy. A fact is Ralph in 2011 cannot beat the Djoker. Let's hear your excuses now (oh the holy Ralph has won 9 GS, blah blah blah).

CMM
04-18-2011, 07:31 AM
Who cares?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ggNbEc5Lzfub/x810.jpg

li0scc0
04-18-2011, 07:44 AM
Yeah what's the deal with insulting people just because they are Djokovic fans??????

What is the deal for insulting people just because they are:
Federer fans
Nadal fans
Djokovic fans
Murray fans
Graf fans
Wozniacki fans
S Williams fans
Laver fans
Sampras fans
Verdasco fans
Borg fans
Henin fans
?

Insulting people - that is what the Talk Tennis forums seem to be about.

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 08:39 AM
Who cares?




Winning Monte Carlo is nice. Another masters, nothing wrong with that. I didn't think Ralph played that well to be honest. He beat Murray (what has he done on clay). If we were all watching the same matches, Ralph was on the defense both matches (Ferrer). Hitting moonballs and ridiculous things back. Against Ferrer he seemed to be content on letting Ferrer dictate the match (Ferrer had more winners and UE). He basically hit little floaters back and Ferrer looked like he gave the match away (missing an overhead at the net and hitting a blistering 25km/h Ralph forehand 10 feet wide). A win is always a win. The check isn't smaller if you escape not at the top of your game. But, the question I have is, how will Ralph continue on clay playing all of these tournaments? He better pick his game up, because at RG there will be a lot of people looking to put him out of his misery. This has yet to be decided. Most likely outcome:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XZtOBjNWtTs/SjvtuNKaTrI/AAAAAAAAA6I/9nMfb7R6xAg/s1600/Rafael-Nadal-injured.1jpg.jpg

CMM
04-18-2011, 08:48 AM
Winning Monte Carlo is nice. Another masters, nothing wrong with that. I didn't think Ralph played that well to be honest. He beat Murray (what has he done on clay). If we were all watching the same matches, Ralph was on the defense both matches (Ferrer). Hitting moonballs and ridiculous things back. Against Ferrer he seemed to be content on letting Ferrer dictate the match (Ferrer had more winners and UE). He basically hit little floaters back and Ferrer looked like he gave the match away (missing an overhead at the net and hitting a blistering 25km/h Ralph forehand 10 feet wide). A win is always a win. The check isn't smaller if you escape not at the top of your game. But, the question I have is, how will Ralph continue on clay playing all of these tournaments? He better pick his game up, because at RG there will be a lot of people looking to put him out of his misery. This has yet to be decided.

Winning Monte Carlo is more than just nice. It was his 7th consecutive title and he achieved a record.
I know he didn't play his best. I don't really care what he does in Barcelona, Madrid or Rome.
He won plenty of Masters 1000. I don't even care about the rankings.
The only thing that matters is Roland Garros and hopefully he'll be ready for it.

Most likely outcome:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XZtOBjNWtTs/SjvtuNKaTrI/AAAAAAAAA6I/9nMfb7R6xAg/s1600/Rafael-Nadal-injured.1jpg.jpg

We'll see.

ananda
04-18-2011, 08:58 AM
Beaten ?? Slaughtered would have been more appropriate. Heh heh ;)

We'll see at Madrid and Rome. And Paris. Why speculate ?

tiochaota
04-18-2011, 09:46 AM
never happened. dont guess.

bolo
04-18-2011, 09:47 AM
Considering you live in a parallel universe where Novak plays like a beast in MC, I am not surprised that, that is the conclusion you drew from my post. Ofc cortisone is not a magic bullet, that's why it started wearing out in set 3.

Unless of course you want to go the route where we talk about how Murray is a cheater? Where he was in pain the whole match but only decided to call the trainer when things were looking bad for him in the 3rd set. But let's not go there because neither you nor I know the truth.


LOL bolo, that's harsh!


Is it though? You have to wonder what other reason there can for this fascination with Murray making it to a CC masters SF WITH A BROKEN ARM and WINNING A SET VS NADAL. I heard there were UK people dancing in the streets the other day, does any have footage/clips, can someone confirm? :)

I guarantee you this TT will GO WILD the next time federer WINS A SET vs. Nadal or djokovic. TT GONE WILD videos to follow soon after. :)

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 10:31 AM
Djokovic has already beaten Nadal in Monte Carlo, with 3 aces to Nadal's 1.

http://www.livetennisguide.com/wp-content/uploads/Rafael-Nadal-And-Novak-Djokovic-300x225.jpg

MixieP
04-18-2011, 10:52 AM
Would Djokovic have beaten Nadal at Monte Carlo?Yes, yes and yes. Ajde Nole is simply too good for Raphla. It would have been a very one-sided affair, and this time Novak would not have given Rafa a set as he did in their previous two encounters.

Djokovic has a compelling psychological stranglehold of Nadal. I predict that the Serbian strongman will completely and utterly annihilate the Mallorcan matador in the months to come. So much so, in fact, that the Manacorian will most likely begin to lose regularly to opponents ranked ten and lower.

It is rather sad news for the Spaniard's enthusiastic fans but it was inevitable. The Uncle Toni adept had a good run but now his time is up. The era of the Djokovic/Muurya rivalry has began. At long last. And may it last long.

Thanks for reading. No flaming, please. In your hearts you know that I'm only telling the truth. Someone has to do it.

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 10:54 AM
Djokovic will lose his first match on clay. You heard it here first.

Tony48
04-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Sure, Murray "almost" beat Nadal. A truly delusional comment.

The 3rd set was 6-1 Nadal. Wow. That was so-o-o-o-o-o close. I was biting my nails right up until Andy got one freaking game. A barn-burner.

Every time I come to these message boards hoping to find an intelligent comment, there are none to be found.

Hypothetical "what if" threads are absurd.

And the same clowns were going on about how it took Djokovic 3 sets to beat Nadal in Indian Wells.

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 11:22 AM
And the same clowns were going on about how it took Djokovic 3 sets to beat Nadal in Indian Wells.

I second that.

Fate Archer
04-18-2011, 01:34 PM
Well, hypothetical question as it is, sensible people do tend to let past history inform their opinions. Else, it is a free-for-all, and anybody who disputes any contention whatsoever is a prime ***.

Djokovic has never beaten Nadal on clay, Nadal has been virtually unbeatable on clay for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Djokovic repeatedly on hardcourts in the past (even more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Rafa on clay. So, NO.

I can understand this position and why some people are inclined to stay with it. But vehemently sticking with it like there is no other possible outcome and not keeping an open mind makes one as much as a prime *** to me, I think.

Wanna see how failed this position can be? Let's do a quick exercise and go back to a few years back and pretend that the 2008 Wimbledon final is going to be tomorrow.

With what we had in hand there, I guess we would trace the same following reasoning:

''Nadal has never beaten Federer on grass, Federer has been virtually unbeatable on grass for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Nadal repeatedly on clay in the past (never more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Federer on grass. So... NO???''

And we all know what happened.
Fact is, just because it never happened, it doesn't mean that it never will. On the contrary, it makes it even more likely to happen sooner than latter. This is called competition catching up. It happened to Federer, it will happen to Nadal, if it's not already happening.

As for the OP's point in this thread...yeah, IMO, I think Djokovic would have a great shot at doing it. Though I do think he made the wisest choice to not play MC. He's learning with other people' s mistake.

single_handed_champion
04-18-2011, 02:01 PM
I can understand this position and why some people are inclined to stay with it. But vehemently sticking with it like there is no other possible outcome and not keeping an open mind makes one as much as a prime *** to me, I think.

Wanna see how failed this position can be? Let's do a quick exercise and go back to a few years back and pretend that the 2008 Wimbledon final is going to be tomorrow.

With what we had in hand there, I guess we would trace the same following reasoning:

''Nadal has never beaten Federer on grass, Federer has been virtually unbeatable on grass for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Nadal repeatedly on clay in the past (never more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Federer on grass. So... NO???''

Here's how this argument makes one a prime *** for putting it forth:

1. Nadal and Federer had played a measly 2 times on grass going into the 2008 final. The last match was a 5-setter that could have gone either way, and the 1st one was 4 sets as well. Rafa has a 9-0 record over Djokovic on clay (21-3 in sets), and only 1 match was really close enough to suggest Djokovic could have won.
2. Grass is basically Wimbledon (sure, he kept winning Halle, but who plays there really?). So as great as Federer's reign at Wimbledon was, Rafa's claycourt dominance is something else altogether.
3. Novak's current form on hardcourts is being cited over and over again when contending he would beat Rafa on clay. Consider that Rafa did not win a title since October, but wins his very first on clay. Does that mean anything to you? Also, NOvak has shown his hardcourt prowess any number of times before, beating Rafa in several best-of-3 set matches, so this does not mean anything.

Anyway, I favored Federer in the 2008 match anyway, because of his history there. And he very nearly won again, so it wasn't like someone who thought he would win was delusional.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 02:49 PM
I can understand this position and why some people are inclined to stay with it. But vehemently sticking with it like there is no other possible outcome and not keeping an open mind makes one as much as a prime *** to me, I think.

Wanna see how failed this position can be? Let's do a quick exercise and go back to a few years back and pretend that the 2008 Wimbledon final is going to be tomorrow.

With what we had in hand there, I guess we would trace the same following reasoning:

''Nadal has never beaten Federer on grass, Federer has been virtually unbeatable on grass for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Nadal repeatedly on clay in the past (never more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Federer on grass. So... NO???''

And we all know what happened.
Fact is, just because it never happened, it doesn't mean that it never will. On the contrary, it makes it even more likely to happen sooner than latter. This is called competition catching up. It happened to Federer, it will happen to Nadal, if it's not already happening.

As for the OP's point in this thread...yeah, IMO, I think Djokovic would have a great shot at doing it. Though I do think he made the wisest choice to not play MC. He's learning with other people' s mistake.

Precisely, this explains the entire nature of tennis (sport). There are no guarantees. I agree that because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't.

Djokovic is great on clay too, and with his renewed confidence this is a crap shoot, imo.

He's also being wise in resting his body properly before a very important clay court season.

Best post I've seen in a long time.

bolo
04-18-2011, 05:40 PM
I can understand this position and why some people are inclined to stay with it. But vehemently sticking with it like there is no other possible outcome and not keeping an open mind makes one as much as a prime *** to me, I think.

Wanna see how failed this position can be? Let's do a quick exercise and go back to a few years back and pretend that the 2008 Wimbledon final is going to be tomorrow.

With what we had in hand there, I guess we would trace the same following reasoning:

''Nadal has never beaten Federer on grass, Federer has been virtually unbeatable on grass for 6 seasons, and has been beaten by Nadal repeatedly on clay in the past (never more decisively than this year). Hence, there is nothing to indicate he would have edged Federer on grass. So... NO???''

And we all know what happened.
Fact is, just because it never happened, it doesn't mean that it never will. On the contrary, it makes it even more likely to happen sooner than latter. This is called competition catching up. It happened to Federer, it will happen to Nadal, if it's not already happening.

As for the OP's point in this thread...yeah, IMO, I think Djokovic would have a great shot at doing it. Though I do think he made the wisest choice to not play MC. He's learning with other people' s mistake.

Bad example. A lot of people saw fed losing at that wimbledon because of nadal's exceptional previous wimbledon performances, close 2007 final with Fed. and nadal's increase in skill in 2008. There are some previous posts with the journos picks at that time, it was close to even for federer and Nadal IIRC. Djokovic just isn't there yet. He's got to put up some big numbers on clay before he can get to nadal/federer wimbledon 2008.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-18-2011, 07:24 PM
People make too big a deal about surfaces. I would say importance of current form > importance of surface

Fate Archer
04-18-2011, 09:23 PM
Here's how this argument makes one a prime *** for putting it forth:

1. Nadal and Federer had played a measly 2 times on grass going into the 2008 final. The last match was a 5-setter that could have gone either way, and the 1st one was 4 sets as well. Rafa has a 9-0 record over Djokovic on clay (21-3 in sets), and only 1 match was really close enough to suggest Djokovic could have won.
2. Grass is basically Wimbledon (sure, he kept winning Halle, but who plays there really?). So as great as Federer's reign at Wimbledon was, Rafa's claycourt dominance is something else altogether.
3. Novak's current form on hardcourts is being cited over and over again when contending he would beat Rafa on clay. Consider that Rafa did not win a title since October, but wins his very first on clay. Does that mean anything to you? Also, NOvak has shown his hardcourt prowess any number of times before, beating Rafa in several best-of-3 set matches, so this does not mean anything.

1. If you look only at their h2h on clay, you're going to dismiss how close their last 3 matches on clay were. MC 2009 was a very close one, something very similar to the match with Murray last week. Had match points on the Madrid semis. That MC-Madrid form that Djokovic was going through is probably the best measuring stick we have until they play each other again. And even though Nadal came out on top, Djokovic proved that he could beat Nadal on the surface given those performances (at least on best of 3 matches, best of five is another story). At the end of the day, numbers never tell the whole story.

2. So, you're trying to say Nadal is better on clay than Federer on grass?
That's a topic for another thread, I say it only marginally, but I guess we'll never know given the short grass season we have. Even then, the more you win, the sooner you are to lose. He made a perfect clay season last year but we can't simply grant him every match he plays, as good as he is on the surface.

3. The thing is, and someone on this thread said it already, that's the first time Novak has beaten Nadal on a final. And two times in a row at that. How many times did that happen?? Nadal has one of the best records in finals on tour, if he gets there, he sure should be in form and we all know how well he plays in important matches.
And not only that, but the fashion at which Novak is beating Nadal, by outwilling and outfitting him, something that is very important on clay matches, is a huge factor going on on this matchup right now.

It's not about simply stating one's prowess on the surface, but watching how things are developing and how they should matchup with some new elements in the mix. Novak might have found that "little big" something needed to beat Rafa on clay with his new found confidence and form.


Anyway, I favored Federer in the 2008 match anyway, because of his history there. And he very nearly won again, so it wasn't like someone who thought he would win was delusional.

Sure, but neither was anyone who thought Rafa could win. And neither is who thinks Djokovic might beat Rafa the next time they face up on clay.

ananda
04-18-2011, 09:48 PM
Yes, yes and yes. Ajde Nole is simply too good for Raphla. It would have been a very one-sided affair, and this time Novak would not have given Rafa a set as he did in their previous two encounters.

Djokovic has a compelling psychological stranglehold of Nadal. I predict that the Serbian strongman will completely and utterly annihilate the Mallorcan matador in the months to come. So much so, in fact, that the Manacorian will most likely begin to lose regularly to opponents ranked ten and lower.

It is rather sad news for the Spaniard's enthusiastic fans but it was inevitable. The Uncle Toni adept had a good run but now his time is up. The era of the Djokovic/Muurya rivalry has began. At long last. And may it last long.

Thanks for reading. No flaming, please. In your hearts you know that I'm only telling the truth. Someone has to do it.
Best post I've read since I returned. You really should write professionally.

I just hope the Manicurian finds a way, he will. Or rather his Uncle will. The bloody duels between Ajde Nole and Vamos Raphla will become part of human history, history will soon become legend and legend will become myth. Then two thousand years later someone will chance upon your posts and mankind will be divided into two new religions: Ajde Nole and Vamos Raphla.

dmt
04-19-2011, 01:52 AM
djokovic barely beat nadal in miami, nadal is much better on clay and djokovic isnt as good on clay as he is on hard. Conclusion: nadal would most likely win

MixieP
04-19-2011, 03:47 AM
Best post I've read since I returned. You really should write professionally.

I just hope the Manicurian finds a way, he will. Or rather his Uncle will. The bloody duels between Ajde Nole and Vamos Raphla will become part of human history, history will soon become legend and legend will become myth. Then two thousand years later someone will chance upon your posts and mankind will be divided into two new religions: Ajde Nole and Vamos Raphla.

Thank you for your kind words!

Pozarevacka
04-19-2011, 07:24 AM
djokovic barely beat nadal in miami, nadal is much better on clay and djokovic isnt as good on clay as he is on hard. Conclusion: nadal would most likely win

Ralph barely beat Murray on Clay. Clay is Ralph's best. Nole is much better on clay than Murray. Conclusion: Nole would most likely win.

Glory Hunters Anonymous
04-19-2011, 07:28 AM
Pathetic thread for failed science fiction writers to pontificate on alternate realities.

Got em. :lol:

Glory Hunters Anonymous
04-19-2011, 07:30 AM
Yes, yes and yes. Ajde Nole is simply too good for Raphla. It would have been a very one-sided affair, and this time Novak would not have given Rafa a set as he did in their previous two encounters.

Djokovic has a compelling psychological stranglehold of Nadal. I predict that the Serbian strongman will completely and utterly annihilate the Mallorcan matador in the months to come. So much so, in fact, that the Manacorian will most likely begin to lose regularly to opponents ranked ten and lower.

It is rather sad news for the Spaniard's enthusiastic fans but it was inevitable. The Uncle Toni adept had a good run but now his time is up. The era of the Djokovic/Muurya rivalry has began. At long last. And may it last long.

Thanks for reading. No flaming, please. In your hearts you know that I'm only telling the truth. Someone has to do it.

Djokovic / Murray rivalry?
...Murray... :lol::lol::lol::lol:

ananda
04-19-2011, 10:06 AM
Djokovic / Murray rivalry?
...Murray... :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Why ?
Judging by how immaculately Murray played even though badly injured and comfortably numb against Lord Rapha who surpasses perfection, one can safely surmise that Ajde Djokovic must be rattled, body and soul, at the thought of facing Cmon Murray.
Unlike the lopsided Fedal rivalry, the Muuryovic one will be one for the ages, two stallions with no weaknesses (except their equally brittle minds), two beasts ready to tear one another apart for eternal glory.

Murrayfan31
04-19-2011, 10:14 AM
With the slower balls, I think Djokovic would've won. Similar conditions to Miami and the Australian Open.

single_handed_champion
04-19-2011, 10:24 AM
With the slower balls, I think Djokovic would've won. Similar conditions to Miami and the Australian Open.

Yup, Miami and AO were most definitely on crushed red brick.

Murrayfan31
04-19-2011, 10:27 AM
Yup, Miami and AO were most definitely on crushed red brick.
The conditions were heavy in Miami and the Australian Open as well. Djokovic loves those conditions. So what if there is red dirt under. The main thing is the balls don't take spin as well.

single_handed_champion
04-19-2011, 10:35 AM
The conditions were heavy in Miami and the Australian Open as well. Djokovic loves those conditions. So what if there is red dirt under. The main thing is the balls don't take spin as well.

Dude, do you know anything about tennis? :lol: Why do you think Nadal has been so successful on clay? Because he fancies that shade of orange? IT is the clay which takes the spin, more so than the balls. If they played with rice balls, I am sure he would still destroy everyone else.

Anyway, clearly you are adamant Djokovic is untouchable right now. Good for you. Cannot wait for RG and any other encounters they might have.