PDA

View Full Version : D"I believed, therefore I won"Joke


OddJack
12-18-2011, 08:01 AM
The latest Djoke of Novak Djokovic has been uttered this week in an interview. He has announced the key to his success in 2011:

"....This is what I missed in the last three or four years, especially when competing against Federer and Nadal - they were the biggest rivals and I just could not believe I could win majors. So that experience and belief could be a significant change which brought the success this year...."

Yes, you played unbelievably well this year and are truly a number one player

Yes, belief is a huge factor in winning majors, ask one certain Scot.

But you must be joking now Mr. Djoker, because 3 years ago you did win a major and back then you probably also believed that you could.

So lets be honest and not kid yourself too much. I seriously doubt you could beat any 2006-07 Federer on any surface, and certainly not a 2008 or 2010 Nadal on clay( and grass ) when he was not losing a game on clay season let alone a set, no matter how much belief you had.

Funny now that he is winning, in his mind he must have won majors all these past 3-4 years if only he had "believed".

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12100000/rafa-blond-hair-rafael-nadal-12103786-668-602.jpg

GTFOH

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 08:03 AM
I have to agree, that AO2008 victory for Novak was a fluke.

OddJack
12-18-2011, 08:06 AM
Nobody said it was a fluke. It was fair and square and well deserved.

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 08:07 AM
The latest Djoke of Novak Djokovic has been uttered this week in an interview. He has announced the key to his success in 2011:

"....This is what I missed in the last three or four years, especially when competing against Federer and Nadal - they were the biggest rivals and I just could not believe I could win majors. So that experience and belief could be a significant change which brought the success this year...."

Yes, you played unbelievably well this year and are truly a number one player

Yes, belief is a huge factor in winning majors, ask one certain Scot.

But you must be joking now Mr. Djoker, because 3 years ago you did win a major and back then you probably also believed that you could.

So lets be honest and not kid yourself too much. I seriously doubt you could beat any 2006-07 Federer on any surface, and certainly not a 2008 or 2010 Nadal on clay( and grass ) when he was not losing a game on clay season let alone a set, not matter how much belief you had.

Funny now that he is winning, in his mind he must have won all these past 3-4 years if only he had "believed".

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12100000/rafa-blond-hair-rafael-nadal-12103786-668-602.jpg

GTFOH



LMAO.


2008 was a fluke for Djokovic where everything broke down perfectly for him. He played players that were either very good match-ups for him, too sick to play at a high level (Federer with mono), or first time slam finalist who is totally inconsistent regardless of the situation (Tsonga).


Even he admits that he got a little lucky. And two, Djokovic in 2007 beat Federer at Montreal when Djokovic was nowhere near at the top of his game, and Federer was still near the top of his (won 3 slams this year). And in 2008-2010, Djokovic gave Nadal a ton of tough matches during Nadal's supposedly best clay years.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 08:14 AM
Nobody said it was a fluke. It was fair and square and well deserved.

What does fluke have to do with it being deserved or not? Fluke means it was an unusual occurrence at the time. For 3 years after he did not win anything, hence it was a fluke.

OddJack
12-18-2011, 08:26 AM
What does fluke have to do with it being deserved or not? Fluke means it was an unusual occurrence at the time. For 3 years after he did not win anything, hence it was a fluke.

Yes, but "fluke" is used much too negatively in these boards as for someone who won only by a stroke of luck and therefore not deserved. I do not believe Novak 08 major is any less valuable because of that. Safin did not win a major after 2000 for several years and that doesnt mean it was a fluke either.

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 08:28 AM
Yes, but "fluke" is used much too negatively in these boards as for someone who won only by a stroke of luck and therefore not deserved. I do not believe Novak 08 major is any less valuable because of that. Safin did not win a major after 2000 for several years and that doesnt mean it was a fluke either.



Djokovic's 2008 win was a fluke because he had a set of very fortunate circumstances that occurred to allow him a path to victory. He indeed outplayed his opponents, but he also had a very weak set of opponents or opponents he matched up very favorably against.


He still won 7 matches, but I think that even Djokovic knows that his 2008 victory had alot more to do with luck than it did skill. That is not the case for 2010-2011, where he has utterly dominated the tour without any question of "luck."

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 08:33 AM
Yes, but "fluke" is used much too negatively in these boards as for someone who won only by a stroke of luck and therefore not deserved. I do not believe Novak 08 major is any less valuable because of that. Safin did not win a major after 2000 for several years and that doesnt mean it was a fluke either.

Well I think Djoker was indeed lucky Fed was not at his best for unusual reasons. I mean how else do you explain him winning nothing for 3 years? If he was good enough to win then why not repeat it at least once in the next 12 slams? Or perhaps even get close? Nothing happened. Sorry, but that's the definition of fluke. Something irregular. Safin had other factors.

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 08:42 AM
The latest Djoke of Novak Djokovic has been uttered this week in an interview. He has announced the key to his success in 2011:

"....This is what I missed in the last three or four years, especially when competing against Federer and Nadal - they were the biggest rivals and I just could not believe I could win majors. So that experience and belief could be a significant change which brought the success this year...."

Yes, you played unbelievably well this year and are truly a number one player

Yes, belief is a huge factor in winning majors, ask one certain Scot.

But you must be joking now Mr. Djoker, because 3 years ago you did win a major and back then you probably also believed that you could.

So lets be honest and not kid yourself too much. I seriously doubt you could beat any 2006-07 Federer on any surface, and certainly not a 2008 or 2010 Nadal on clay( and grass ) when he was not losing a game on clay season let alone a set, no matter how much belief you had.

Funny now that he is winning, in his mind he must have won majors all these past 3-4 years if only he had "believed".

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12100000/rafa-blond-hair-rafael-nadal-12103786-668-602.jpg

GTFOH

I think I get where Novak comes from with that quote. When he came to the scene he was really cocky and had a ton of game and potential. Even if the circumstances favored him a bit, he was good enough to win a Slam back in 2008.

Everyone thought he was immediately going to be the next big thing, the new "Federer", but what followed was that he was quite humbled by Fedal in the several next big matches.

He was not going to stomp over Fedal at that point anyway, he didn't have the maturity and the stamina or physical conditioning to play in the level and rhythm that he's playing right now. But those many losses to Fed and Nadal really took a bit of his belief, which he started to turn around just last year.

It was a required step in the process of creating the beast we saw this year. I have a hard time seeing Novak playing so well and being so fully committed if he didn't have to overcome such fierce competition.

my 2 cents

OddJack
12-18-2011, 08:46 AM
Djokovic's 2008 win was a fluke because he had a set of very fortunate circumstances that occurred to allow him a path to victory. He indeed outplayed his opponents, but he also had a very weak set of opponents or opponents he matched up very favorably against.


He still won 7 matches, but I think that even Djokovic knows that his 2008 victory had alot more to do with luck than it did skill. That is not the case for 2010-2011, where he has utterly dominated the tour without any question of "luck."

I can see the luck factor in many other majors won. Rodge 09 FO and Nadal 10 USO. Luck can be a factor for any player. My point was you still have to have belief you can win, otherwise no luck can help you. This is what this thread was about.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 09:05 AM
Djokovic's 2008 win was a fluke because he had a set of very fortunate circumstances that occurred to allow him a path to victory. He indeed outplayed his opponents, but he also had a very weak set of opponents or opponents he matched up very favorably against.


He still won 7 matches, but I think that even Djokovic knows that his 2008 victory had alot more to do with luck than it did skill. That is not the case for 2010-2011, where he has utterly dominated the tour without any question of "luck."

You want to talk about luck now? :lol: Why not talk about Nadal's USO 2010 where he played a bunch of clowns, most of them exhausted, all the way up to the final?
Why not talk about Federer's junk Slams where his main foes were chokers like Roddick and Hewitt?
Djokovic fully deserved AO 2008 just as much as Federer and Nadal deserved their Slams.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 09:11 AM
Mental strength helps a ton! Basically it's everything.
Look at Tyson vs Douglas. Was Douglas the strongest, fastest, most powerful guy Tyson ever fought? Not by a long shot.
But Douglas wasn't in awe of Tyson like all those other guys and decided to bully the little man.
Djokovic didn't believe in himself against Fedal. Now he's at a stage where he can say "Federer? Nadal? Who cares....I'm f*cking NOVAK DJOKOVIC, b*tch!!!" :lol: :lol:

purge
12-18-2011, 09:50 AM
just imagine where wed be at right now had djokovic missed the line on one of those forehands he said he played "with his eyes closed" being down match points against fed in the USO semi '10.

thats the fascinating thing about professional sports. a few moments can change an entire career. for better or worse

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 09:55 AM
Djokovic is noone. His whole 2011 season was a fluke, the result of a massive amount of luck and a huge level drop from all the players he faced.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 10:01 AM
too many here practice sarcasm without knowing its art.

Tabash
12-18-2011, 10:35 AM
The latest Djoke of Novak Djokovic has been uttered this week in an interview. He has announced the key to his success in 2011:

"....This is what I missed in the last three or four years, especially when competing against Federer and Nadal - they were the biggest rivals and I just could not believe I could win majors. So that experience and belief could be a significant change which brought the success this year...."

Yes, you played unbelievably well this year and are truly a number one player

Yes, belief is a huge factor in winning majors, ask one certain Scot.

But you must be joking now Mr. Djoker, because 3 years ago you did win a major and back then you probably also believed that you could.

So lets be honest and not kid yourself too much. I seriously doubt you could beat any 2006-07 Federer on any surface, and certainly not a 2008 or 2010 Nadal on clay( and grass ) when he was not losing a game on clay season let alone a set, no matter how much belief you had.

Funny now that he is winning, in his mind he must have won majors all these past 3-4 years if only he had "believed".

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12100000/rafa-blond-hair-rafael-nadal-12103786-668-602.jpg

GTFOH

He said in the past that he didn't find confidence hard to come by when he won AO08. He said that he was young and "had nothing to lose" so it was much easier to play freely and at your best. He said it's much harder to do this when you become more established and aware of yourself. Anyway he's not saying he will without question win every match once he believes, he's just saying it's necessary to win. And he's got a point, there were a lot of close big matches, that he choked in the last few years. Nadal at the Olympics stands out. He was the better player for the second half of that match, got tight when serving to stay in it at 4-5 in the third and on match point, blasted an absolute sitter of a smash, wide.Epic choke. Federer at the USO 09, three tight sets, 7-6, 7-5, 7-5. Djokovic got tight at the end of all of them, sloppy errors in the TB, and some more choking in the next two sets. It's true, there were matches e might have won, if he'd lost his fear

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 11:23 AM
I can't believe what I'm reading. Some people here are claiming that Djokovic was lucky to win AO '08 and that it was a fluke. Wow.

Djokovic played (arguably) his best tennis ever at that tournament. His serving was brilliant. Never got it back at the exact level after that period.

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 11:31 AM
You want to talk about luck now? :lol: Why not talk about Nadal's USO 2010 where he played a bunch of clowns, most of them exhausted, all the way up to the final?
Why not talk about Federer's junk Slams where his main foes were chokers like Roddick and Hewitt?
Djokovic fully deserved AO 2008 just as much as Federer and Nadal deserved their Slams.



Federer and Nadal proved that they can beat everyone.


Djokovic got one slam in 2008 and never sniffed another one from that point on until recently. That's a fluke. Period. He was not ready to win.

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 11:37 AM
Federer and Nadal proved that they can beat everyone.


Djokovic got one slam in 2008 and never sniffed another one from that point on until recently. That's a fluke. Period. He was not ready to win.
USO '07 final and a couple of masters was more than enough for him to be ready to win a slam.

He proved that he's got it in him; many slams. 3 years after? So what? He had another 2 slam finals, WTF and 5 MS before he's won his second slam. Not a fluke.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 01:04 PM
I can't believe what I'm reading. Some people here are claiming that Djokovic was lucky to win AO '08 and that it was a fluke. Wow.

Djokovic played (arguably) his best tennis ever at that tournament. His serving was brilliant. Never got it back at the exact level after that period.

Why not?????

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 01:16 PM
I can't believe what I'm reading. Some people here are claiming that Djokovic was lucky to win AO '08 and that it was a fluke. Wow.

Djokovic played (arguably) his best tennis ever at that tournament. His serving was brilliant. Never got it back at the exact level after that period.

That's quite true. His serve used to be much more of a weapon back in 2007 and 2008.

I think Novak has done more than enough this season to prove that 2008 was no fluke (calling a fluke is a bit too much, IMO), it was only the foreshadowing of what was to come once he matured as a player.

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 01:25 PM
That's quite true. His serve used to be much more of a weapon back in 2007 and 2008.

I think Novak has done more than enough this season to prove that 2008 was no fluke (calling a fluke is a bit too much, IMO), it was only the foreshadowing of what was to come once he matured as a player.



It's a fluke, even Novak knows it. He had no belief that he could truly beat the best of the best. He wasn't physically capable of doing it.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 01:34 PM
just imagine where wed be at right now had djokovic missed the line on one of those forehands he said he played "with his eyes closed" being down match points against fed in the USO semi '10.

thats the fascinating thing about professional sports. a few moments can change an entire career. for better or worse

who knows what might have happened in the rivalry and for Federer's confidence if Federer had converted any of those 2 match points he had against Nadal in Rome 2006 or converted on any of those break points which could've given him the chance to go up 2 sets to 1 on Nadal at the AO 2009.
Heck how about if Djokovic had bagged the first 2 sets against Federer at the USO 2007 or converted on those set points on Federer at Roland Garros this year? A single point can change history completely. That's the sport of tennis.:)

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 01:35 PM
It's a fluke, even Novak knows it. He had no belief that he could truly beat the best of the best. He wasn't physically capable of doing it.

Thanks for telling all of us what Novak thinks:)

sportsfan1
12-18-2011, 01:52 PM
The whole 'didn't have confidence before but happened to find it lying around over the Davis cup weekend' explanation is too simplistic. Note that before his AO win, he was on a 3 game losing streak to Fed in the fall and had lost to Nadal as well.
Physical condition doesn't improve overnight, neither does belief. Not implying anything here, but it would be nice to get a logical explanation, rather than the silly stuff put out for mass consumption.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 02:01 PM
Djokovic said his USO 2010 run was also the turning point of his career. After that win over Federer and losing to Nadal in the finals, Djokovic said he then knew he was ready to beat anybody in the world. It was not the Davis Cup alone.

celoft
12-18-2011, 02:03 PM
Nole is a transitional champ between Fedal and whatever comes after Fedal. :) Sort of a much better Courier, the transitional champ of 20 years ago. As a better Courier, Nole ought to end up with around 8 slams.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 02:27 PM
Nole is a transitional champ between Fedal and whatever comes after Fedal. :) Sort of a much better Courier, the transitional champ of 20 years ago. As a better Courier, Nole ought to end up with around 8 slams.

Please! Djokovic is playing in the prime of Nadal's career. He replaced a prime Nadal to get his #1 ranking and win his last 2 Slams, beating the reigning champion. You can make an excuse for 30 year old Federer but not for 24-25 year old Nadal. Get a clue! :lol:

TMF
12-18-2011, 02:33 PM
I can't believe what I'm reading. Some people here are claiming that Djokovic was lucky to win AO '08 and that it was a fluke. Wow.

Djokovic played (arguably) his best tennis ever at that tournament. His serving was brilliant. Never got it back at the exact level after that period.

You actually don't know that Fed was very sick in early 2008 that affected his ability at the AO? Come on, you are not being honest here.

celoft
12-18-2011, 02:53 PM
Please! Djokovic is playing in the prime of Nadal's career. He replaced a prime Nadal to get his #1 ranking and win his last 2 Slams, beating the reigning champion. You can make an excuse for 30 year old Federer but not for 24-25 year old Nadal. Get a clue! :lol:

Spin it how you want it, mate. But he is doing most of his winning after Federer went through his 8 consecutive years winning slams(2003-2010) and when Nadal's almost 8 years winning slams are winding down(2005-2012?).

Bottom line, I would have been more impressed if Nole had this year in 2008 than in 2011. :)

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 03:32 PM
Why not?????

Why not? Well, he explained it many times. But tell me what do you think why? I'm just going to add that his serving at USO '07 was also as good as AO '08 since he ended the tournament at 3rd place by number of aces (behind Roger and some big server I think).

zagor
12-18-2011, 03:38 PM
Nole is a transitional champ between Fedal and whatever comes after Fedal. :) Sort of a much better Courier, the transitional champ of 20 years ago. As a better Courier, Nole ought to end up with around 8 slams.

Fed isn't Novak's generation but Nadal sure as heck is. He can't be a transitional champion when he's beating one of the best players of this era in his prime(Nadal).

You actually don't know that Fed was very sick in early 2008 that affected his ability at the AO? Come on, you are not being honest here.

He was sick but I doubt he was "very" sick, he still was good enough to reach slam SF(and get himself into position to win the 1st and 3d sets, the match was tight for a straight setter). Regardless all players play through some issues and Fed has always been good at playing through injury/sickness/fatigue so he was still quite dangerous.

Spin it how you want it, mate. But he is doing most of his winning after Federer went through his 8 consecutive years winning slams(2003-2010) and when Nadal's almost 8 years winning slams are winding down(2005-2012?).

Bottom line, I would have been more impressed if Nole had this year in 2008 than in 2011. :)

What's this consecutive winning slam years thing people use all the time these days? For Pete's sake 2010 was supposed to be the beginning of Nadal's peak in which he will smash Fed's records to bits and now he's some withered old man already? 2008 version of Nadal didn't reach 3 slam finals and aside from the Olympics match was having lopsided losses to Novak on HC.

Eternity
12-18-2011, 03:42 PM
^^ You don't think there's anything to that 8 consecutive years winning slams record?

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 03:47 PM
Nole is a transitional champ between Fedal and whatever comes after Fedal. :) Sort of a much better Courier, the transitional champ of 20 years ago. As a better Courier, Nole ought to end up with around 8 slams.

Someone who's won around 8 slams can't ever be marked as a "transitional champ". :)Those people are named all-time greats.

zagor
12-18-2011, 03:49 PM
^^ You don't think there's anything to that 8 consecutive years winning slams record?

Maybe there is but every player is different. You can draw some parallels but you still have to look at each case individually, especially when it comes to a player like Nadal.

Regardless of what many people say, 2011 Nadal doesn't scream decline to me (not severe decline atleast), he reached 3 slam finals(equaling his record), reached a personal record number of slam+masters finals etc. He basically just couldn't handle one guy, tha seems like a match-up problem to me not a significant overall decline in skills.

Personally I'll be very suprised if Nadal doesn't win a slam next year or reaches any less than 2 slam finals.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 04:17 PM
Why not? Well, he explained it many times. But tell me what do you think why? I'm just going to add that his serving at USO '07 was also as good as AO '08 since he ended the tournament at 3rd place by number of aces (behind Roger and some big server I think).

Well I already told you what I think. The only logical explanation was that he was not really ready to win AO08. The proof is in the data. The next 12 slams he didn't even get to a 5th set in a final. I think the inability to win at least 1 more slam in all that time proves AO08 was premature. It happened because of extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, if we actually look at the winners of those 12 slams following AO08, it was mostly Fedal, once again proving that it was unusual that AO08 was won by someone else other than Fedal. Hence AO08 was a fluke.

Crazy man
12-18-2011, 04:19 PM
Federer and Nadal proved that they can beat everyone.


Djokovic got one slam in 2008 and never sniffed another one from that point on until recently. That's a fluke. Period. He was not ready to win.

So what was US Open 2007? Where he managed to make the final, couldn't close out that first set and had chances in that match, it was straight sets, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Djokovic also made the SF at the FO and the SF at Wimbledon - he lost to Nadal both times, but did you see him at Wimbledon (he played on one foot).



Also, whilst Djokovic was getting awesomely easy draws, the only players who were beating Djokovic a few times at the slams were Federer (primarily at the US Open) and Nadal (mostly at the FO). A few losses at Wimbledon were bad, but Djokovic did have some technical issues with his game at that point, and had no serve to work with.






I agree with your notion Djokovic got 'lucky' in his slam win, but he's also been unlucky a few times, hand on heart can you honestly say Roddick wasn't lucky to win the US Open 2003??

OddJack
12-18-2011, 04:21 PM
Maybe there is but every player is different. You can draw some parallels but you still have to look at each case individually, especially when it comes to a player like Nadal.

Regardless of what many people say, 2011 Nadal doesn't scream decline to me (not severe decline atleast), he reached 3 slam finals(equaling his record), reached a personal record number of slam+masters finals etc. He basically just couldn't handle one guy, tha seems like a match-up problem to me not a significant overall decline in skills.

Personally I'll be very suprised if Nadal doesn't win a slam next year or reaches any less than 2 slam finals.


I agree that it was not a bad year by any standards. He did what he usually does. Win FO, bag some masters, make life miserable for players in all of the other majors.

But, the decline that's been talked about here is more than a wishful thinking by Federer or Djoker fans, if that's what you are thinking. What screams decline is two concerns you cannot overlook. One is his health, second is his mental strength.

In the other thread someone did an interesting comparison of players who won 2 or more RG titles by 25-26. None of them were able to do much after they passed that age. This is not by coincidence.

He himself has said he is not as strong mentally as he used to be, plus the loss of passion for the game, which reminds me of Agassi. Part of his mental problem I believe, goes back to his health problems. He has abused his body for years, pain killers are no longer enough. Right before his match with Monaco Spanish news papers reported he received shots in his knees.

These concerns are real and I think we will know after FO one way or the other.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 04:24 PM
Nadal's 2011 was better than every year of his career except for 2010 and 2008. And that's only in terms of results. Surely his 2011 level overall on all surfaces was greater than 2008. Think HC before rebutting what I say.

CocaCola
12-18-2011, 06:10 PM
Well I already told you what I think. The only logical explanation was that he was not really ready to win AO08. The proof is in the data. The next 12 slams he didn't even get to a 5th set in a final. I think the inability to win at least 1 more slam in all that time proves AO08 was premature. It happened because of extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, if we actually look at the winners of those 12 slams following AO08, it was mostly Fedal, once again proving that it was unusual that AO08 was won by someone else other than Fedal. Hence AO08 was a fluke.

Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. He went in as an amazing talent, reached very high level in 2007 and stayed at top 3 since then. He was more than ready to win a slam with the way he played. After '09 and '10 many people were saying that he reached his peak back than (USO '07 AO '08 ), no? But only few of them went on to say that he's one slam wonder. It's easy to say now that it was actually premature with all he did this year.
I can agree that he was not strong enough mentally to cope with the likes of Federer and Nadal, with their consistency at slams but his level was there, he had to win some of those HC slams.

Btw, my focus here was on his serve, that's what I was referring to when I said he never got it back to that level. I thought your question was why his serve is not as good as it was, even in 2011.

The way he served (vs Ferrer AO '08 QF's):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Huwm_Llxo best part at 2:15

jackson vile
12-18-2011, 06:29 PM
Djokovic is noone. His whole 2011 season was a fluke, the result of a massive amount of luck and a huge level drop from all the players he faced.

Funny how Nadal and Novak are so lucky...

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 06:36 PM
Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. He went in as an amazing talent, reached very high level in 2007 and stayed at top 3 since then. He was more than ready to win a slam with the way he played. After '09 and '10 many people were saying that he reached his peak back than (USO '07 AO '08 ), no? But only few of them went on to say that he's one slam wonder. It's easy to say now that it was actually premature with all he did this year.

Btw, my focus here was on his serve, that's what I was referring to when I said he never got it back to that level. I thought your question was why his serve is not as good as it was, even in 2011.

I'm not saying he wasn't an amazing talent or anything like that. And he is surely the best player in the world now. But in 2008 he was what 21 or 22? After his victory he could have only gotten better as he approached his prime years of athletic and tennis ability. He was on an upward slope. Add to this that Roger was only getting weaker after 2008. Yet in 2009 Djoker was nowhere to be found in the AO final, nor in 2010! Heck old man Fed won it then when he was clearly on a downward trend and Djoker upward. Yet he wasn't able to repeat not even one slam for 3 whole years! That speaks huge volumes. 2008 was merely a blip on the radar for Djoker. The data prove that.

I never said after what happened this year that what he did in 2008, I was saying it back in 2010. It was a fluke because there was nothing close to repeating it.

And yes I understood his serve was very good in AO2008, but it doesn't take 3 years to get that back. The explanation isn't that he lost his serve and couldn't get it back, it is that 2008 was a fluke.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 06:40 PM
Funny how Nadal and Novak are so lucky...

Novak sure wasn't lucky this year, it was all skill on his part. Nadal was lucky he didn't face him at the FO.

OddJack
12-18-2011, 06:43 PM
^^^^^
We were all lucky he didnt.

What would be dealing with here with a grand slam for Djoklites

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 07:39 PM
Right, he's lucky he's not lucky...


You confused again boss? Take your medication.

Sentinel
12-18-2011, 08:29 PM
Djokovic is noone. His whole 2011 season was a fluke, the result of a massive amount of luck and a huge level drop from all the players he faced.
You Nadal fans are beyond hilarious.
What level drop are we speaking of ?
Federer - when did his level drop. Played an excellent FO. Played very well at WO, but and only got taken out by a perfect game by Jo. MP's at USO.

Nadal - his record itself speaks for itself. The number of finals he reached only to be beaten by one person.
At the FO, Nadal beat, nay thrashed, the only person who could beat Nole till then. Finally capping it with a majestic win at DC.

Murray: reached 4 semis, and one final. Beat Joker once too.

Joker played everyone at their best, or close to it. The one person who can be said to be getting old is Federer, but he had a great year too. No excuses, no luck, no weak era here.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 09:07 PM
Spin it how you want it, mate. But he is doing most of his winning after Federer went through his 8 consecutive years winning slams(2003-2010) and when Nadal's almost 8 years winning slams are winding down(2005-2012?).

Bottom line, I would have been more impressed if Nole had this year in 2008 than in 2011. :)

Good for you if you're not impressed. I'm sure somebody might give a damn. :lol:
You can talk crap as much as you like, the bottom line is TODAY is Rafael Nadal's prime at age 25 and he was smashed 6 times in 6 finals on ALL surfaces while he was ranked #1 and in his physical prime by a player of his own generation.

Mike Sams
12-18-2011, 09:13 PM
I agree that it was not a bad year by any standards. He did what he usually does. Win FO, bag some masters, make life miserable for players in all of the other majors.

But, the decline that's been talked about here is more than a wishful thinking by Federer or Djoker fans, if that's what you are thinking. What screams decline is two concerns you cannot overlook. One is his health, second is his mental strength.

In the other thread someone did an interesting comparison of players who won 2 or more RG titles by 25-26. None of them were able to do much after they passed that age. This is not by coincidence.

He himself has said he is not as strong mentally as he used to be, plus the loss of passion for the game, which reminds me of Agassi. Part of his mental problem I believe, goes back to his health problems. He has abused his body for years, pain killers are no longer enough. Right before his match with Monaco Spanish news papers reported he received shots in his knees.

These concerns are real and I think we will know after FO one way or the other.

Even Federer began losing his passion for the game after all the Nadal losses. Makes sense that Nadal would lose his passion since he's got a rival now. Stop making excuses for Nadal! Nadal is 25 and in his prime. If he can't handle the grind, too bad for him. Survival of the fittest! That's how it is.

CocaCola
12-19-2011, 04:12 AM
You Nadal fans are beyond hilarious.
What level drop are we speaking of ?
Federer - when did his level drop. Played an excellent FO. Played very well at WO, but and only got taken out by a perfect game by Jo. MP's at USO.

Nadal - his record itself speaks for itself. The number of finals he reached only to be beaten by one person.
At the FO, Nadal beat, nay thrashed, the only person who could beat Nole till then. Finally capping it with a majestic win at DC.

Murray: reached 4 semis, and one final. Beat Joker once too.

Joker played everyone at their best, or close to it. The one person who can be said to be getting old is Federer, but he had a great year too. No excuses, no luck, no weak era here.

That was a sarcastic comment, sorry if it's so bad...I'm Djokovic's fan. But thanks for stating it to some ***** I was paraphrasing in that post. :)

zagor
12-19-2011, 08:49 AM
I'm not saying he wasn't an amazing talent or anything like that. And he is surely the best player in the world now. But in 2008 he was what 21 or 22? After his victory he could have only gotten better as he approached his prime years of athletic and tennis ability. He was on an upward slope. Add to this that Roger was only getting weaker after 2008. Yet in 2009 Djoker was nowhere to be found in the AO final, nor in 2010! Heck old man Fed won it then when he was clearly on a downward trend and Djoker upward. Yet he wasn't able to repeat not even one slam for 3 whole years! That speaks huge volumes. 2008 was merely a blip on the radar for Djoker. The data prove that.

I never said after what happened this year that what he did in 2008, I was saying it back in 2010. It was a fluke because there was nothing close to repeating it.

And yes I understood his serve was very good in AO2008, but it doesn't take 3 years to get that back. The explanation isn't that he lost his serve and couldn't get it back, it is that 2008 was a fluke.

Well yes Novak failed to back up his 2008 slam win until 3 years later, if anything his 2009 and 2010 level of play was worse than even 2007 version of Novak. Who could have expected that Novak would not just fail to improve his game in 2 seasons post 2008 but even regress in some ways, it was unexpected and disappointing.

However I still maintain that his 1st slam win didn't come out of nowhere(and thus it isn't a fluke in my eyes), in 2007 Novak won Miami beating Nadal on the way, beat top 3 (Fedal and Roddick at the time) in Canada masters and finally reached USO final where he played Fed extremely close in the first two sets, winning next HC slam (AO) was sort of a natural progression from that and not that big of a surprise.

Really, 2007 USO final and 2008 SF are very similar matches, arguably neither Fed nor Novak "should" have lost in straights on either of those occassions but the other guy just played the big points much better. The roles just reversed in 2008 AO SF compared to 2007 USO final.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 09:02 AM
Well yes Novak failed to back up his 2008 slam win until 3 years later, if anything his 2009 and 2010 level of play was worse than even 2007 version of Novak. Who could have expected that Novak would not just fail to improve his game in 2 seasons post 2008 but even regress in some ways, it was unexpected and disappointing.

However I still maintain that his 1st slam win didn't come out of nowhere(and thus it isn't a fluke in my eyes), in 2007 Novak won Miami beating Nadal on the way, beat top 3 (Fedal and Roddick at the time) in Canada masters and finally reached USO final where he played Fed extremely close in the first two sets, winning next HC slam (AO) was sort of a natural progression from that and not that big of a surprise.

Really, 2007 USO final and 2008 SF are very similar matches, arguably neither Fed nor Novak "should" have lost in straights on either of those occassions but the other guy just played the big points much better. The roles just reversed in 2008 AO SF compared to 2007 USO final.

I might go so far as to say even in 2007 when he beat the top 3 was just a blip as well. Sometimes players get hot, but if it is a real kind of hotness then it lasts and there are some vestiges of it that linger. In Novak's case, he just happened to be playing really well in that period and then cooled off to his normal level at that point in time. Moreover, this was combined with non-optimal play by Federer at the time. I mean when he beat Fed at the Canadian Master it was a hard fought 3 set victory and quite unexpected. We all saw how shaky Fed was becoming compared to his previous years. Compare that with Novak now, where he has earned everything no matter how well the other guy plays.

sportsfan1
12-25-2011, 12:19 PM
Djokovic is noone. His whole 2011 season was a fluke, the result of a massive amount of luck and a huge level drop from all the players he faced.

....No excuses, no luck, no weak era here.

Coke may have forgotten the eye roll icon at the end there. But going by his avatar pic of the Djoker, you are preaching to the choir - he's likely one of them Djoker fans :-)

mattennis
12-25-2011, 01:19 PM
Totally agree with zagor here.

I remember that after what I saw in Indian Wells'07, Miami'07, RolandGarros'07, Wimbledon'07, Canadian Open'07 and USO'07, I said to all my tennis friends that that guy Djokovic would be nš1 in the world in about Spring'08.

I was so much impressed with Djokovic back then. Even though he lost to Nadal in RolandGarros'07 SF (something like 7-5 6-4 6-2) he showed that he could compete with him there (first two sets were really close and fought).

He got to Wimbledon SF beating Hewitt and Baghdatis in very fought matches, and then retired in the SF against Nadal because of severe blisters and pains.

He defeated Roddick, Nadal and Federer back to back to win the Canadian Open'07 whick impressed me even more.

And then, the USO'07. In the Final against Federer, in the first set he was 6-5 up and serving, with 40-0 (yes, three straight set points with his serve, IIRC). And he got tight. He lost that serve even though he had another 2 additional set points (5 sets points with his serve, amazing), and ended up losing the first set in a tie-break.

He was 4-1 up in the second set and nearly breaking Federer's serve in the next game for a two breaks up lead.

He had another two set points when leading 6-5 and 15-40 (on Federer's serve).

It is quite amazing that he managed to lose that match in straight sets.


So when he won the Australian Open'08 it didn't surprise me at all.

In fact, for me, he played a bit better in the USO'07 Final than in the AusOpen'08 SF against Federer (but this time he managed to win).

He was consistently showing (at that point) that he was the future nš1 (more than Nadal in my opinion) playing great on hard courts and showing his capabilities on clay and grass as well, so I think that his first GS title at AusOpen'08 didn't surprise anyone.

He backed it up, winning Indian Wells (beating Nadal 6-3 6-2 in SF) and Rome, and giving a very hard fought match in Hamburg'08 SF against Nadal (losing 5-7 6-2 2-6) in a match that would have given him the nš2 ranking for the first time.

In RolandGarros'08 he was the one who fighted Nadal the most (losing in the SF something like 6-4 6-2 7-6) in a match that, again, would have given him the nš2 ranking.

He lost again to Nadal in Queens'08 Final (something like 7-6 7-5) but he had good chances to win that match.

I think that at that point, something happened. Perhaps he realized how close he was to become nš2 (and not far away from nš1) but those three straight defeats to Nadal maybe did something to his mind. Maybe he started to think too much, maybe he felt some vertigo.

The thing is that, from that point on, he was not the same. His forehand started to miss much more, his serve went awful for a long period of time, his stamina and physical shape was not good enough...

It took him about two and a half years to become what I (and many people) thought he would become: the nš1 player of the world.