PDA

View Full Version : If Djokovic had gotten to the RG2011 final, would he have beaten Nadal??


-RF-
09-21-2012, 02:45 PM
Just popped into my head. He beat Nadal in Madrid and Rome in 2011, and was in the form of his life, he also played a lot better in 2011 than he did at the '12 final, but still managed to
make this years final relatively close. Thoughts??

monfed
09-21-2012, 02:46 PM
Oh absolutely. Djokovic in straights or Djokovic in 4.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-21-2012, 02:49 PM
"Do you hate Rafael Nadal?

Yes
No
Extremley close, could go either way."

Ms Nadal
09-21-2012, 02:51 PM
I was so happy when Roger beat Novak in that RG semi last year. Because I know that Djokovic would have beaten wounded Rafa for sure! God answered my prayers!

PrinceMoron
09-21-2012, 02:55 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RF20Lennon
09-21-2012, 03:32 PM
Only if that stupid dropshot had gone in at 5-2 :mad:

MichaelNadal
09-21-2012, 03:32 PM
Probably but you never know. Nadal was defending like a backboard in that final.

monfed
09-21-2012, 03:55 PM
Probably but you never know. Nadal was defending like a backboard in that final.

Probably? :lol:
Perra,por favor!

Fed-Djokovic match was a rare occassion where you and your fellow Ralph brethren were praying for Fed, so please drop the BS,we've seen the mad celebration from the Nadal fans after the match was over in the match thread.


Oh and how Ralph plays Federer(especially on clay) is no indication of how he'd have played against Nole(especially given how Nole straight setted the bull in his own den in the previous two consecutive encounters especially Rome,where Ralph couldn't even beat a half-dead Nole). They are two completely different matchups for him.

Hood_Man
09-21-2012, 04:05 PM
Nadal's confidence was in tatters already, and coming up against the guy responsible for that, and dealing with the quicker than usual conditions... I think Novak would have pulled it off.

Obviously with "what-ifs" being what they are we'll never know, but Nadals level was shocking by his usual standards in that tournament.

I still can't believe Andujar didn't win that 3rd set :shock:

Jackuar
09-21-2012, 04:10 PM
If GS counts are a concern, Federer actually dis-favoured himself by winning that semifinal. Djokovic with that kind of form would have blasted Nadal in atleast 5 sets.

monfed
09-21-2012, 04:12 PM
If GS counts are a concern, Federer actually dis-favoured himself by winning that semifinal. Djokovic with that kind of form would have blasted Nadal in atleast 5 sets.

Yea, that was a dumb move by Fed. On the bright side though,Fed-Djoko was the greatest claycourt match in history.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 04:21 PM
Djokovic is psyched out by Roland Garros. He'd never have won it. He was playing way better than Federer prior to the 2011 semi-final. Made no difference. It will be the slam that forever eludes him.

monfed
09-21-2012, 04:24 PM
Djokovic is psyched out by Roland Garros. He'd never have won it. He was playing way better than Federer prior to the 2011 semi-final. Made no difference. It will be the slam that forever eludes him.

You wish. :lol:

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 04:26 PM
You wish. :lol:

The proof is all there on videotape. On top of that, Djokovic was playing flawlessly at 2012 Roland Garros, until he ran into Nadal.

Sabratha
09-21-2012, 04:31 PM
No, but I believe it would have been very close.

Mustard
09-21-2012, 04:54 PM
Oh absolutely. Djokovic in straights or Djokovic in 4.

I can sense that it pains you to know that the thread question doesn't matter since Djokovic didn't get to the final and Nadal won the title :lol:

The-Champ
09-21-2012, 04:56 PM
he probably would have beaten Rafa. Rafa is at least three years past his clay peak..

Mustard
09-21-2012, 04:57 PM
The proof is all there on videotape. On top of that, Djokovic was playing flawlessly at 2012 Roland Garros, until he ran into Nadal.

Djokovic was brilliant in beating Federer in the semi final, but in the Round of 16 he had to come back from 2 sets down to beat Seppi, and also had to save 4 match points in the fourth set against Tsonga in the quarter finals. That isn't flawless at all.

Tony48
09-21-2012, 05:02 PM
It would have been a bloodbath.

But it makes no difference. It's all Fognini's fault anyway :(

Mustard
09-21-2012, 05:09 PM
It would have been a bloodbath.

But it makes no difference. It's all Fognini's fault anyway :(

All hail Fognini ;)

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 05:13 PM
If GS counts are a concern, Federer actually dis-favoured himself by winning that semifinal. Djokovic with that kind of form would have blasted Nadal in atleast 5 sets.

It was the lesser of two evils. If Djokovic won that match versus Fed he might have been sitting on a CYGS at the end of 2011. That would damage Federer's legacy worse than an extra slam for Rafa.

It's time for Fed fans to face facts. At least Djokovic had the cojones to stand up to Rafa at the slams. Fed fails to put away sitter after sitter and he deserves all that he gets from Rafa fans.

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 05:40 PM
It was the lesser of two evils. If Djokovic won that match versus Fed he might have been sitting on a CYGS at the end of 2011. That would damage Federer's legacy worse than an extra slam for Rafa.

It's time for Fed fans to face facts. At least Djokovic had the cojones to stand up to Rafa at the slams. Fed fails to put away sitter after sitter and he deserves all that he gets from Rafa fans.

Match-up issue. Prime Federer would dogwalk prime Djokovic across all surfaces. 30 year-old Federer, on his worst surface, beat in-the-form-of-his-life-Djokovic.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 05:46 PM
Nadal vs Federer.
slam H2H: 8-2
non-slam H2H: 10-8
Interesting.

Tony48
09-21-2012, 05:46 PM
Match-up issue. Prime Federer would dogwalk prime Djokovic across all surfaces. 30 year-old Federer, on his worst surface, beat in-the-form-of-his-life-Djokovic.

So I suppose prime Agassi would school prime Federer since an "over the hill" 34-year-old Agassi took him to 5 sets at the U.S. Open in 2004 when Federer was in HIS prime?

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 05:49 PM
So I suppose Federer should be embarrassed that an "over the hill" 34-year-old Agassi took him to 5 sets at the U.S. Open in 2004 when Federer was in HIS prime?

Not really, because Agassi, one of the greatest players of all time, was playing on his best surface and he's renowned for playing great Tennis way into his 30s. But Federer should've probably got the job done in 4.

ETA : Also, I never said Djokovic should be embarassed. Federer's got the match-up advantage. Djokovic has done really well, considering.

Murrayfan31
09-21-2012, 05:51 PM
Yep Djokovic would've won. Bad luck with having too many days off before facing Federer.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 05:52 PM
Not really, because Agassi, one of the greatest players of all time, was playing on his best surface and he's renowned for playing great Tennis way into his 30s. But Federer should've probably got the job done in 4.

Australian Open hardcourt is FAR AND AWAY Agassi's best surface. Not even close.

Federer got the job done in 4 sets a year later in the US Open final vs Agassi. After Agassi had played THREE five-setters prior to the final!

Tony48
09-21-2012, 05:54 PM
Not really, because Agassi, one of the greatest players of all time, was playing on his best surface and he's renowned for playing great Tennis way into his 30s. But Federer should've probably got the job done in 4.

Oh, so when a MUCH OLDER Agassi is playing Federer, you refer to Agassi as "one of the greatest players of all time" but when Federer is playing Djokovic, you refer to him as a 30-year-old.

What a double standard

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 05:54 PM
Australian Open hardcourt is FAR AND AWAY Agassi's best surface. Not even close.

Federer got the job done in 4 sets a year later in the US Open final vs Agassi. After Agassi had played THREE five-setters prior to the final!

I was talking about Hard Courts. Anyway, Federer beat Agassi rather comfortably in 3 sets at the AO the same year.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 05:55 PM
Yep Djokovic would've won. Bad luck with having too many days off before facing Federer.

Obviously Djokovic would never have been able to beat prime Nadal. The question is, could he beat 2011 Nadal at Roland Garros? Too bad we'll never know. But we know he couldn't beat 2012 Nadal, that is for sure.

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 05:57 PM
Oh, so when a MUCH OLDER Agassi is playing Federer, you refer to Agassi as "one of the greatest players of all time" but when Federer is playing Djokovic, you refer to him as a 30-year-old.

What a double standard

Agassi was on his best surface (Hard), Federer on his worst (Clay). Federer was in his prime, yes, but not at his peak (which was late 2005 and 2006). Djokovic was coming off of straight-setting the Clay GOAT Nadal, who is way, way, way better than Federer on Clay, but lost to Federer. I'm not necessarily saying Federer is better than Djokovic. This is actually a defense of Djokovic if you read it right. I'm talking match-ups.

Tony48
09-21-2012, 06:13 PM
Agassi was on his best surface (Hard), Federer on his worst (Clay).

Federer's W/L record at the French was just as good as Agassi's W/L record at the U.S. Open. Besides, has Agassi ever made 4-straight U.S. Open finals? No. Federer was more consistent at the French than Agassi ever was at the U.S. Open. Yet Federer gets a pass for being pushed by a well-past prime Agassi and but Djokovic doesn't.

So to suggest that Federer was some chump at the French (simply because he lost all the time to the greatest claycourter of all-time) is extremely disingenuous. Clay is Federer's "worst" surface by the tiniest of margins. Remove 1 man and Federer has 6 French Opens.

Federer was in his prime, yes, but not at his peak (which was late 2005 and 2006). Djokovic was coming off of straight-setting the Clay GOAT Nadal, who is way, way, way better than Federer on Clay, but lost to Federer. I'm not necessarily saying Federer is better than Djokovic. This is actually a defense of Djokovic if you read it right. I'm talking match-ups.

Ummm...a lot of people lose to Federer. Soderling beat Nadal at RG (the only man to do so, btw) then lost to Federer. Was THAT shocking? But somehow it's shocking that Federer beat Djokovic?

PSNELKE
09-21-2012, 06:20 PM
Probably? :lol:
Perra,por favor!

Fed-Djokovic match was a rare occassion where you and your fellow Ralph brethren were praying for Fed, so please drop the BS,we've seen the mad celebration from the Nadal fans after the match was over in the match thread.


Oh and how Ralph plays Federer(especially on clay) is no indication of how he'd have played against Nole(especially given how Nole straight setted the bull in his own den in the previous two consecutive encounters especially Rome,where Ralph couldn't even beat a half-dead Nole). They are two completely different matchups for him.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
Cause beating Nadal at RG on his best surface is the same pair of shoes as beating him in 2 masters series events.
How the hell can you be 100% sure that he would have beaten Nadal?

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 06:26 PM
Match-up issue. Prime Federer would dogwalk prime Djokovic across all surfaces. 30 year-old Federer, on his worst surface, beat in-the-form-of-his-life-Djokovic.

I agree that a prime Fed wouldn't have much trouble with any form of Djokovic, but the same can't be said with regards to Nadal.

People like to bring up the "match up issue," but I can't believe it is that simple. Fed has had his chances in many of his losses to Nadal and has failed to capitalize. It gets old after awhile.

The thing that bothers me is that in many of their matches (even when Federer was older) is that Federer is capable of making Nadal look like any old chump for a given period. Then, one missed shot on a big point and you know that the match is over. It is a little pathetic.

Back to the issue of Djokovic vs. Nadal in the 2011 RG final, it was probably the best shot anyone ever had of taking down Nadal in a final there. Obviously, no one knows for sure how it would have gone down, but I would think even the *******s were worried.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 06:27 PM
I was talking about Hard Courts. Anyway, Federer beat Agassi rather comfortably in 3 sets at the AO the same year.

Yep because Agassi showed his age. Agassi after age 33 wasn't very consistent at the slams, to say the least. I mean, he lost to all kinds of players that he would have hammered in his prime.

Numenor
09-21-2012, 06:29 PM
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
Cause beating Nadal at RG on his best surface is the same pair of shoes as beating him in 2 masters series events.
How the hell can you be 100% sure that he would have beaten Nadal?

Given the way the rest of 2011 turned out, it is as close to certain that Djoker would have beaten Nadal at the French. Take Wimbledon 2011 for example: Djoker's worst surface, Nadal's 2nd best. The result: Djoker put away Nadal, and demolished him especially in the 2nd set.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 06:29 PM
I agree that a prime Fed wouldn't have much trouble with any form of Djokovic, but the same can't be said with regards to Nadal.

People like to bring up the "match up issue," but I can't believe it is that simple. Fed has had his chances in many of his losses to Nadal and has failed to capitalize. It gets old after awhile.

The thing that bothers me is that in many of their matches (even when Federer was older) is that Federer is capable of making Nadal look like any old chump for a given period. Then, one missed shot on a big point and you know that the match is over. It is a little pathetic.



Also, the NadalFederer h2h in non-slams is 10-8. Doesn't look like a "matchup" issue to me.

kishnabe
09-21-2012, 06:31 PM
If Djokovic had gotten to the 2006,07,08 RG final, how many RGs would Federer have?

To the Question....I have never seen Djokovic play like he did in 2011 in 2012. Nadal was very vulnerable that year on clay.....showed by how a old Federer was almost beating Nadal.
Djokovic would have won confortably.

Mustard
09-21-2012, 06:34 PM
It's funny how the anti-Nadal brigade just assume that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in this hypothetical match. It's even funnier to see how much it bothers them that Nadal won the 2011 French Open.

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 06:37 PM
Also, the NadalFederer h2h in non-slams is 10-8. Doesn't look like a "matchup" issue to me.

I don't want to take anything away from how good Nadal is on clay, where a majority of their matches have been played. The fact is, the only way Federer has been able to beat Nadal is when he was playing better tennis by a large margin. Even then, Nadal is usually able to make the matches closer than they should be.

Any time their levels are similar, Nadal is always able to pull out the win. It gets old for Fed fans.

Tony48
09-21-2012, 06:37 PM
It's funny how the anti-Nadal brigade just assume that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in this hypothetical match. It's even funnier to see how much it bothers them that Nadal won the 2011 French Open.

4-0 in sets won against Nadal on clay
2-0 in slams (both were finals)
6-0 in overall matches against Nadal in 2011

It's not exactly a stretch to suggest that Djokovic would have won. It took the greatest player of all-time to take down Djokovic. Other than that, from January to September, Djokovic was pretty much unbeatable.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 06:46 PM
I don't want to take anything away from how good Nadal is on clay, where a majority of their matches have been played. The fact is, the only way Federer has been able to beat Nadal is when he was playing better tennis by a large margin. Even then, Nadal is usually able to make the matches closer than they should be.

Any time their levels are similar, Nadal is always able to pull out the win. It gets old for Fed fans.

Well, they shouldn't worry. Everyone else in the top 10 has experienced the same thing. They all have a poor record vs Nadal. Even Tsonga, has only won 3 matches vs Nadal in 10 meetings. Tsonga lost 4 hardcourt matches in a row to Nadal, before Tsonga beat Nadal at the 2011 World Tour Finals in a close 3-setter (but then Nadal won their most recent hardcourt match - Miami 2012). Federer should be happy he didn't lose 4 hardcourt matches in a row to Nadal. Although I guess losing 2 straight hardcourt slam matches is just as bad or worse. But nothing is worse than Berdych - 11 straight losses (and only 3 of those meetings were on clay).

Bottom line, Federer is not alone. Federer is just another statistic.

kishnabe
09-21-2012, 06:46 PM
It's funny how the anti-Nadal brigade just assume that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in this hypothetical match. It's even funnier to see how much it bothers them that Nadal won the 2011 French Open.

Obviously....that year Federer played his best clay court tennis of his life so far....and still came short. It annoying to see....rather Novak beat Federer and go on to beat Nadal.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 06:48 PM
Obviously....that year Federer played his best clay court tennis of his life so far....and still came short. It annoying to see....rather Novak beat Federer and go on to beat Nadal.

And also the 2012 Australian Open, when Federer was playing his best hardcourt tennis - 26 straight wins before he lost to Nadal.

monfed
09-21-2012, 06:49 PM
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
Cause beating Nadal at RG on his best surface is the same pair of shoes as beating him in 2 masters series events.
How the hell can you be 100% sure that he would have beaten Nadal?

Because a half dead Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome in straights which is slow clay.Nadal looked all at sea and was actually hitting lobs in that match to try something different but it wasn't working. It seemed at the time that he didn't have the answers(he himself admitted that). At RG, he was taken to 5 by Isner, could've easily gone to 4 against Andujar(had he not choked from 5-0 40-0 up), Fed was outplaying him for a lengthy period in the final and really should've won the first set.



We were robbed of a great final showdown where Djokovic could've become the undisputed king of clay(though he was the king of clay in 2011 in my book),damn you Fed!

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 06:51 PM
Well, they shouldn't worry. Everyone else in the top 10 has experienced the same thing. They all have a poor record vs Nadal. Even Tsonga, has only won 3 matches vs Nadal in 10 meetings. Tsonga lost 4 hardcourt matches in a row to Nadal, before Tsonga beat Nadal at the 2011 World Tour Finals in a close 3-setter (but then Nadal won their most recent hardcourt match - Miami 2012). Federer should be happy he didn't lose 4 hardcourt matches in a row to Nadal. Although I guess losing 2 straight hardcourt slam matches is just as bad or worse. But nothing is worse than Berdych - 11 straight losses.

Bottom line, Federer is not alone. Federer is just another statistic.

The difference is that Federer is sitting on 17 slams and is possibly one of the most talented players of all time. He has it in him to beat Nadal without playing beyond his ordinary level, but is unable to do so. Maybe the statistics are skewed because of the clay and because they hardly met in slams that weren't played on clay when Federer was at his best. It is still terrible either way.

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 06:52 PM
Because a half dead Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome in straights which is slow clay.Nadal looked all at sea and was actually hitting lobs in that match to try something different but it wasn't working. It seemed at the time that he didn't have the answers(he himself admitted that). At RG, he was taken to 5 by Isner, could've easily gone to 4 against Andujar(had he not choked from 5-0 40-0 up), Fed was outplaying him for a lengthy period in the final and really should've won the first set.



We were robbed of a great final showdown where Djokovic could've become the undisputed king of clay(though he was the king of clay in 2011 in my book),damn you Fed!

Coulda woulda shoulda. Failed.

Tony48
09-21-2012, 06:54 PM
Because a half dead Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome in straights which is slow clay.Nadal looked all at sea and was actually hitting lobs in that match to try something different but it wasn't working. It seemed at the time that he didn't have the answers(he himself admitted that). At RG, he was taken to 5 by Isner, could've easily gone to 4 against Andujar(had he not choked from 5-0 40-0 up), Fed was outplaying him for a lengthy period in the final and really should've won the first set.



We were robbed of a great final showdown where Djokovic could've become the undisputed king of clay(though he was the king of clay in 2011 in my book),damn you Fed!

I was with you until this :)

monfed
09-21-2012, 06:56 PM
I was with you until this :)

I meant in 2011,not of all time. Hope that helps!

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 06:57 PM
I meant in 2011,not of all time. Hope that helps!

It depends on who you ask. According to Johnny Mac, Djokovic would have become the best clay courter of all time immediately after beating Nadal.

monfed
09-21-2012, 07:01 PM
It depends on who you ask. According to Johnny Mac, Djokovic would have become the best clay courter of all time immediately after beating Nadal.

Really? That's crazy. I don't think Nadal's clay statistics will ever be surpassed.

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 07:03 PM
Really? That's crazy. I don't think Nadal's clay statistics will ever be surpassed.

I'm not sure if McEnroe is that much of a bandwagoner, but he is pretty close. I can't believe some of the things he says sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit, but then it is hard to tell with Jmac.

monfed
09-21-2012, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure if McEnroe is that much of a bandwagoner, but he is pretty close. I can't believe some of the things he says sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit, but then it is hard to tell with Jmac.

Yea,like he said Nadal's a better volleyer than Federer, think it was after USO 2010. :lol:

Tony48
09-21-2012, 07:06 PM
McEnroe just really, really likes this era and he goes overboard sometimes.

Whenever he says that Djokovic has some great volleys, I die a little. Djokovic is my favorite player, but he sucks at the net.

roundiesee
09-21-2012, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by Tony48

It would have been a bloodbath.

But it makes no difference. It's all Fognini's fault anyway

All hail Fognini ;)

Could not remember what happened 2 years ago; why was it Fognini's fault??

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by Tony48

It would have been a bloodbath.

But it makes no difference. It's all Fognini's fault anyway



Could not remember what happened 2 years ago; why was it Fognini's fault??

I guess Fognini was the player who withdrew and allowed Djokovic "too much" rest time before the Federer match.

veroniquem
09-21-2012, 07:27 PM
I don't think so. Rafa is another animal at RG, especially in a final. The weird thing is I believe if Djoko had made RG final 2011, Rafa would have beaten him and maybe Djoko wouldn't have won Wimbledon afterwards...

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 07:28 PM
I don't think so. Rafa is another animal at RG, especially in a final. The weird thing is I believe if Djoko had made RG final 2011, Rafa would have beaten him and maybe Djoko wouldn't have won Wimbledon afterwards...

And that's what happened this year. Djokovic hasn't been the same player since Roland Garros. Confidence shaken.

Clarky21
09-21-2012, 07:30 PM
Given the way the rest of 2011 turned out, it is as close to certain that Djoker would have beaten Nadal at the French. Take Wimbledon 2011 for example: Djoker's worst surface, Nadal's 2nd best. The result: Djoker put away Nadal, and demolished him especially in the 2nd set.



Yep,and Nadal didn't win a set 6-1 himself in the same match did he? And since Nadal played the worst slam final of his career in that match,**** should have won it a whole lot easier than he did.

veroniquem
09-21-2012, 07:34 PM
Of course, if Djoko had beaten Nadal in the RG final 2011, then he might be holding the calendar slam at this time. :shock: Personally, it's my tennis dream, to see someone do the calendar slam on 3 surfaces. Currently, I can't imagine anyone having a shade of a chance other than Djoko and Nadal (Fed is too old, Murray doesn't have the game on clay). I'm praying for a miracle. I would absolutely worship whoever does it!

roundiesee
09-21-2012, 07:35 PM
I guess Fognini was the player who withdrew and allowed Djokovic "too much" rest time before the Federer match.

Oh my goodness, shades of Federer this year at the US Open when Fish withdrew, :(

Mustard
09-21-2012, 07:36 PM
Could not remember what happened 2 years ago; why was it Fognini's fault??

Fognini managed to beat Montanes 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 11-9 in the Round of 16, and got injured during the match. Fognini had to withdraw from his quarter final match against Djokovic, so Djokovic had a walkover into the semi finals. Many people in the anti-Nadal brigade blamed this for Djokovic's loss to Federer in the semi finals, and for Nadal subsequently winning the title.

NadalDramaQueen
09-21-2012, 07:37 PM
Yep,and Nadal didn't win a set 6-1 himself in the same match did he? And since Nadal played the worst slam final of his career in that match,**** should have won it it a whole lot easier than he did.

As a Nadal fan, were you not relieved that Fed took out Djokovic at RG? Did you really think Federer was going to get hot enough to take out Nadal on clay in a slam final?

Based on your previous posts (in various threads), I feel confident that you would have predicted Djoker to crush Nadal in the 2011 RG final. Is that not true?

Mustard
09-21-2012, 07:41 PM
Of course, if Djoko had beaten Nadal in the RG final 2011, then he might be holding the calendar slam at this time. :shock: Personally, it's my tennis dream, to see someone do the calendar slam on 3 surfaces. Currently, I can't imagine anyone having a shade of a chance other than Djoko and Nadal (Fed is too old, Murray doesn't have the game on clay). I'm praying for a miracle. I would absolutely worship whoever does it!

Not since Jim Courier in 1992 has a male player won the first 2 majors of a calendar year.

veroniquem
09-21-2012, 07:44 PM
Not since Jim Courier in 1992 has a male player won the first 2 majors of a calendar year. And not since 1969 has anybody won all 4. Not very promising :( but I'm still hoping :)

Mustard
09-21-2012, 08:01 PM
And not since 1969 has anybody won all 4. Not very promisung :( but I'm still hoping :)

When Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969, I know 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, but it would be wrong to say the conditions were all the same. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different. Brisbane was firm and high bouncing for a grass-court. Wimbledon was relatively firm and low bouncing, while Forest Hills was a bog of a court that only reacted well to junk.

veroniquem
09-21-2012, 08:11 PM
When Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969, I know 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, but it would be wrong to say the conditions were all the same. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different. Brisbane was firm and high bouncing for a grass-court. Wimbledon was relatively firm and low bouncing, while Forest Hills was a bog of a court that only reacted well to junk. Maybe but it would still be special to see someone doing it on clay, grass and hard + I was too young to watch tennis in 1969. I want to watch it happen live!!

MichaelNadal
09-21-2012, 08:29 PM
And not since 1969 has anybody won all 4. Not very promising :( but I'm still hoping :)

Vamos Rafa 2013 lol.

DolgoSantoro
09-21-2012, 08:38 PM
The proof is all there on videotape. On top of that, Djokovic was playing flawlessly at 2012 Roland Garros, until he ran into Nadal.

He had to save MP's against Tsonga didn't he?

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 08:43 PM
Federer's W/L record at the French was just as good as Agassi's W/L record at the U.S. Open. Besides, has Agassi ever made 4-straight U.S. Open finals? No. Federer was more consistent at the French than Agassi ever was at the U.S. Open. Yet Federer gets a pass for being pushed by a well-past prime Agassi and but Djokovic doesn't.

So to suggest that Federer was some chump at the French (simply because he lost all the time to the greatest claycourter of all-time) is extremely disingenuous. Clay is Federer's "worst" surface by the tiniest of margins. Remove 1 man and Federer has 6 French Opens.



Ummm...a lot of people lose to Federer. Soderling beat Nadal at RG (the only man to do so, btw) then lost to Federer. Was THAT shocking? But somehow it's shocking that Federer beat Djokovic?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Noone said it's a surprise. That is my whole point. It's a darn MATCH-UP issue. And Clay is DEFINITELY Federer's weakest surface. He's still extremely good on it, of course, but it is still his weakest. That was the Slam where he took a little while longer to start making deep runs in tournaments. And it was also the surface to stop his consecutive SFs streak. Again, I don't know what you're arguing against. Are you saying Nadal isn't a bad match-up for Federer? Or that Federer isn't a bad match-up for Djokovic?

roundiesee
09-21-2012, 08:44 PM
Maybe but it would still be special to see someone doing it on clay, grass and hard + I was too young to watch tennis in 1969. I want to watch it happen live!!

Yes, us tennis fans all live in hope; would wonderful to see someone achieve this feat, :)

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 08:46 PM
Yep because Agassi showed his age. Agassi after age 33 wasn't very consistent at the slams, to say the least. I mean, he lost to all kinds of players that he would have hammered in his prime.

I'm not saying that says anything about how prime-Fed versus prime-Ag would go down.

Prisoner of Birth
09-21-2012, 08:47 PM
Also, the NadalFederer h2h in non-slams is 10-8. Doesn't look like a "matchup" issue to me.

4 of those Federer wins were on indoor hard-courts. If there a Slam on that surface, the Slam head-to-head would look similar. Or maybe not, because Nadal wouldn't make it far enough to face Federer.

abmk
09-21-2012, 08:52 PM
The proof is all there on videotape. On top of that, Djokovic was playing flawlessly at 2012 Roland Garros, until he ran into Nadal.

hey clueless, djokovic was down 2 sets to love vs seppi and had to save 4 MPs vs tsonga .... that is not playing flawless ...

and your boy nadal got very very lucky that federer took out djoker in 2011 RG semi-final or else djokovic would have completed the rafail slam ( 2011 RG, 2011 wimbledon, 2011 USO and 2012 AO ) :)

tennisMVP
09-21-2012, 11:31 PM
^ Djokovic's demolition of Federer this year at Roland Garros is the most flawless display I've ever seen on clay outside of Nadal.

Gizo
09-22-2012, 02:31 AM
Nadal was completely psyched about by Djokovic at the time (he admitted he was having a lot of problems against him). I think that in 2011 Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at any tournament on any surface in any scenario. Last year whatever Nadal could produce, he had an answer, and he was able to outlast Nadal and out-defend him as well.

Also Nadal didn't play that well at RG 2011 as a whole. He was much less convincing at that tournament than any of his other 6 successful RG campaigns.

However had Djokovic won RG last year, I don't think he would have won Wimbledon as well.

fps
09-22-2012, 02:44 AM
When Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969, I know 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, but it would be wrong to say the conditions were all the same. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different. Brisbane was firm and high bouncing for a grass-court. Wimbledon was relatively firm and low bouncing, while Forest Hills was a bog of a court that only reacted well to junk.

Also the talent pool was minuscule compared with today. Not trolling, just saying.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-22-2012, 02:57 AM
Nadal would have won Roland Garros 2011 regardless of the result.

By the way, if Federer's dropshot had been a winner, it wouldn't have mattered, since Federer won the first set against Nadal at AO 2012 too, but he lost. That's why grand slam tennis is all that matters, since it's best of 5 sets, and Nadal owns Federer there. (Nadal owns Djokovic there too.)

Crisstti
09-22-2012, 04:03 AM
It would have been the best chance someone would have had this far to beat Rafa in a RG final. I still would give Nadal some 50% chance of winning. Its true he was psyched out by Novak and he was awfully shaky during that tournament, having lost two clay finals to Djokovic in straight sets, but he upped his level considerably in the final of RG. He didn't start well though, and Novak would have won that first set, but then it isn't like Rafa hasn't won 5 set matches on clay after losing the first set...

Had they played and had Rafa won, he wouldn't have lost the Wimbledon, USO and AO finals (not all of them anyway).

4 of those Federer wins were on indoor hard-courts. If there a Slam on that surface, the Slam head-to-head would look similar. Or maybe not, because Nadal wouldn't make it far enough to face Federer.

Nadal would be better on it then.

and your boy nadal got very very lucky that federer took out djoker in 2011 RG semi-final or else djokovic would have completed the rafail slam ( 2011 RG, 2011 wimbledon, 2011 USO and 2012 AO ) :)

How would haters have loved that. Too bad it didn't happen, no? ;)

Crisstti
09-22-2012, 04:08 AM
^ Djokovic's demolition of Federer this year at Roland Garros is the most flawless display I've ever seen on clay outside of Nadal.

I don't think so. Fed played awful. He didn't even seem like he wanted to win that match.

Murrayfan31
09-22-2012, 07:09 AM
It would be similar to the Rome final.

Clarky21
09-22-2012, 07:51 AM
I don't think so. Fed played awful. He didn't even seem like he wanted to win that match.



This is the truth. Fed made a mess of that match and still had chances to win both the first and second sets. He was an UE machine,much like he was in the Rome semi this year as well. Thankfully,******** stayed away and Serverer showed up,and he was able to beat **** in the Wimby semi. :)

Numenor
09-22-2012, 12:52 PM
Yep,and Nadal didn't win a set 6-1 himself in the same match did he? And since Nadal played the worst slam final of his career in that match,**** should have won it a whole lot easier than he did.

Novak is prone to mid-match mental lapses, which usually ends up costing him a set or two. See for example both Us Open 2011 and Australian 2012, which he should have won in 3 and 4 sets, respectively. But Nadal pounced where Novak faltered, and ended up winning sets.

And I don't think Nadal was playing poorly at all. It's just that Novak was pretty much unplayable at that point. That's why I mentioned the 2nd set of their Wimbledon final: Nadal threw the kitchen sink at him, and Novak just returned it with interest.

flyinghippos101
09-22-2012, 12:58 PM
Nadal was playing some pretty high level tennis. Keep in mind that we don't know how intense Novak's semi-final match would've been. Where's the divergence point? The fourth set tiebreak? Because if so, then Nadal I'm pretty sure would've won convincingly. Novak and Fed were just working each other unbelievably hard and we saw the effects of that in Fed during the final when he just didn't have it in him to match Nadal physically in the end. And keep in mind, if Novak won that fourth set tiebreak, I'm almost certain that Fed would've made Novak work for it. If Novak instead, say...won in a straight sets rout over Fed like this year, then I imagine it would've been pretty close and could go either way.

Tony48
09-22-2012, 01:07 PM
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Noone said it's a surprise. That is my whole point. It's a darn MATCH-UP issue. And Clay is DEFINITELY Federer's weakest surface. He's still extremely good on it, of course, but it is still his weakest. That was the Slam where he took a little while longer to start making deep runs in tournaments. And it was also the surface to stop his consecutive SFs streak. Again, I don't know what you're arguing against. Are you saying Nadal isn't a bad match-up for Federer? Or that Federer isn't a bad match-up for Djokovic?

I'm reading your original post and maybe I misunderstood it. Sorry. Because I do agree to some extent that Federer is a bad match-up for Djokovic.

Clarky21
09-22-2012, 01:10 PM
Novak is prone to mid-match mental lapses, which usually ends up costing him a set or two. See for example both Us Open 2011 and Australian 2012, which he should have won in 3 and 4 sets, respectively. But Nadal pounced where Novak faltered, and ended up winning sets.

And I don't think Nadal was playing poorly at all. It's just that Novak was pretty much unplayable at that point. That's why I mentioned the 2nd set of their Wimbledon final: Nadal threw the kitchen sink at him, and Novak just returned it with interest.



I guess every match **** plays is all on his racket then,huh? Maybe sometimes,but certainly not every time. But if we go by your nonsense,his opponent is just cannon fodder,and may as well not even show up.


And Nadal did play poorly in that Wimby final last year. Nadal is miles better on grass than **** is no matter if it's pre-Dr. Igor ****,or the current FrankenCvac Dr. Igor created. Shoot,Fed beat peak **** without too much trouble this year at Wimby,even at his age and with his decline. Fed would have mauled him if **** ever made it to him during his peak years at Wimby.

Mustard
09-22-2012, 01:17 PM
Also the talent pool was minuscule compared with today. Not trolling, just saying.

Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Gimeno, Okker, Gonzales, Stolle, Riessen, Emerson, Anderson, Taylor, Buchholz, Ralston, Drysdale, Graebner, Santana, Kodes, Hewitt, Smith.

Yeah, miniscule talent pool :?

RF20Lennon
09-22-2012, 01:23 PM
Nadal would have won Roland Garros 2011 regardless of the result.

By the way, if Federer's dropshot had been a winner, it wouldn't have mattered, since Federer won the first set against Nadal at AO 2012 too, but he lost. That's why grand slam tennis is all that matters, since it's best of 5 sets, and Nadal owns Federer there. (Nadal owns Djokovic there too.)

if it was in he wouldve won the first set 6-2 maybe he couldve won the second 7-6 in the breaker but he defs won the third set 7-5 so even if he lost the breaker it wouldve gone to the 5th so fed wouldve had the chance!

Talker
09-22-2012, 01:32 PM
Djokovic was better on clay in 2011, and in five sets the advantage would be more.

It didn't happen so............

RF20Lennon
09-22-2012, 01:34 PM
Djokovic was better on clay in 2011, and in five sets the advantage would be more.

It didn't happen so............

yeap im pretty sure Djokovic wouldve won that encounter!

Numenor
09-22-2012, 01:36 PM
I guess every match **** plays is all on his racket then,huh? Maybe sometimes,but certainly not every time. But if we go by your nonsense,his opponent is just cannon fodder,and may as well not even show up.

I didn't say that, although it was largely true for most of 2011 and this year's Australian Open.

And Nadal did play poorly in that Wimby final last year. Nadal is miles better on grass than **** is no matter if it's pre-Dr. Igor ****,or the current FrankenCvac Dr. Igor created.

I agree. 2 Wimbledon titles and 3 finals >>> 1 Wimbledon title.
Shoot,Fed beat peak **** without too much trouble this year at Wimby,even at his age and with his decline. Fed would have mauled him if **** ever made it to him during his peak years at Wimby.

While Fed played very well, Novak wasn't at his best. And of course Fed would have beaten Novak in his peak years, grass is Djoker's worst surface after all. That's why the 2011 Wimbledon victory was so special.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-22-2012, 01:42 PM
if it was in he wouldve won the first set 6-2 maybe he couldve won the second 7-6 in the breaker but he defs won the third set 7-5 so even if he lost the breaker it wouldve gone to the 5th so fed wouldve had the chance!

Tennis doesn't work that way. You don't play with the same mentality when you're up a set as you are down a set.

Nadal wins.

Agassifan
09-22-2012, 01:45 PM
Obviously, yes. Just like Rafa was a lock to beat Fed.

Ms Nadal
09-22-2012, 02:04 PM
Am just glad Rafa played Roger in 2011 RG final. I was so scared that it would be Djokovic. It would have killed Rafa to lose to Djokovic in that final on his adopted court. Rafa is a very sensitive young man.

Prisoner of Birth
09-22-2012, 02:04 PM
I'm reading your original post and maybe I misunderstood it. Sorry. Because I do agree to some extent that Federer is a bad match-up for Djokovic.

I wasn't dissing Djokovic if that's what you thought. My stress was on the match-ups. I believe Prime Nadal would have an edge over Prime Federer, even if they played evenly across all surfaces, but not because he's "the better player." It's because he's one of the greatest players ever (2nd, IMO) who is also a terrible match-up for Federer; much worse than Federer is for Djokovic.

Prisoner of Birth
09-22-2012, 02:08 PM
I guess every match **** plays is all on his racket then,huh? Maybe sometimes,but certainly not every time. But if we go by your nonsense,his opponent is just cannon fodder,and may as well not even show up.


And Nadal did play poorly in that Wimby final last year. Nadal is miles better on grass than **** is no matter if it's pre-Dr. Igor ****,or the current FrankenCvac Dr. Igor created. Shoot,Fed beat peak **** without too much trouble this year at Wimby,even at his age and with his decline. Fed would have mauled him if **** ever made it to him during his peak years at Wimby.

Djokovic 2012 wasn't at his "peak." Prime, yes, but not peak. Prime Federer is unbeatable at Wimbledon, IMHO, except by prime Sampras, so I'm still agreeing with your point.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-22-2012, 02:08 PM
The important thing is that Djokovic made it to the Roland Garros 2012 final, and we all saw what the result was there. 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5. And the 2-6 set came when they were playing under questionable conditions.

Ms Nadal
09-22-2012, 02:18 PM
The better player won and that was Rafa. Rafa had a scare though with the changing court conditions and the Monday finish. That is easily Rafa's most stressful RG win.

Prisoner of Birth
09-22-2012, 02:19 PM
The important thing is that Djokovic made it to the Roland Garros 2012 final, and we all saw what the result was there. 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5. And the 2-6 set came when they were playing under questionable conditions.

That's like saying Nadal would lose to Rosol at W13 just because he lost to him at W12.

MTF07
09-22-2012, 02:36 PM
And also the 2012 Australian Open, when Federer was playing his best hardcourt tennis - 26 straight wins before he lost to Nadal.

A far cry from his 56 straight hard court wins in 2005-06.

beast of mallorca
09-22-2012, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=-RF-;6912659]Just popped into my head. He beat Nadal in Madrid and Rome in 2011, and was in the form of his life, he also played a lot better in 2011 than he did at the '12 final, but still managed to
make this years final relatively close. /QUOTE]

It did not happen. Rafa won, Djoker did not. That's the past. Close thread !!
Moving on. :)

Mustard
09-22-2012, 06:02 PM
A far cry from his 56 straight hard court wins in 2005-06.

Nadal ended that streak too. It was a fabulous counter attack, where Nadal sucked up everything Federer could throw at him and then won the points that mattered later on in the match. Federer punched himself out, as they say.

T-Noone
09-22-2012, 07:03 PM
No use reminiscing on "what ifs"....i think the question is whether Djokovic is going to win RG in 2013. I think it is definitely a possibility, since Nadal might come back a weaker player. And watching him play in 2012 compared to 2011, he's not as aggressive but his defense is getting better

RF20Lennon
09-22-2012, 07:32 PM
The better player won and that was Rafa. Rafa had a scare though with the changing court conditions and the Monday finish. That is easily Rafa's most stressful RG win.

yeah ofcourse after I mean if they played on sunday djokovic wouldve won but ofcourse they couldnt because it was unplayable as the court was "too wet" or "too dry" forget what nadal said :rolleyes:

Mustard
09-22-2012, 07:32 PM
yeah ofcourse after I mean if they played on sunday djokovic wouldve won but ofcourse they couldnt because it was unplayable as the court was "too wet" or "too dry" forget what nadal said :rolleyes:

Too muddy, which it clearly was.

RF20Lennon
09-22-2012, 07:51 PM
Too muddy, which it clearly was.

pretty sure they couldve squeezed in a few more games if not the whole set

Clarky21
09-22-2012, 08:16 PM
pretty sure they couldve squeezed in a few more games if not the whole set



And I'm pretty sure that they shouldn't have been playing on a mudpit in the rain at all. Since when is tennis meant to be played in the rain?

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 07:15 AM
Nadal ended that streak too. It was a fabulous counter attack, where Nadal sucked up everything Federer could throw at him and then won the points that mattered later on in the match. Federer punched himself out, as they say.

What match was that?.

yeah ofcourse after I mean if they played on sunday djokovic wouldve won but ofcourse they couldnt because it was unplayable as the court was "too wet" or "too dry" forget what nadal said :rolleyes:

Wishful thinking. You can't know that.

And it was obviously too muddy.

helloworld
09-23-2012, 07:23 AM
Djokovic has 0 FO and Nadal has 7. Let's not get carried away by saying Djokovic would have won had he reached the final last year.

Mustard
09-23-2012, 07:30 AM
What match was that?

The 2006 Dubai final. Nadal won 2-6, 6-4, 6-4.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 07:48 AM
Djokovic has 0 FO and Nadal has 7. Let's not get carried away by saying Djokovic would have won had he reached the final last year.

So? Sampras had 7 wimbledon titles and fed had 0 in 2001 and Sampras was defending champion and fed won that match. Im not saying DJokovic wouldve won for sure im just saying that logic is flawed

NamRanger
09-23-2012, 08:02 AM
And I'm pretty sure that they shouldn't have been playing on a mudpit in the rain at all. Since when is tennis meant to be played in the rain?



Since when is tennis supposed to be played in the dark where both players can barely see? Come on now, don't apply double standards.

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 08:05 AM
The 2006 Dubai final. Nadal won 2-6, 6-4, 6-4.

Thanks Mustard :). I don't think I've seen it. Doesn't appear to be on YouTube though.

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 08:11 AM
Thanks Mustard :). I don't think I've seen it. Doesn't appear to be on YouTube though.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOYNSSSrFQ

PSNELKE
09-23-2012, 08:30 AM
So? Sampras had 7 wimbledon titles and fed had 0 in 2001 and Sampras was defending champion and fed won that match. Im not saying DJokovic wouldve won for sure im just saying that logic is flawed

Nadal at RG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete at Wimbledon.

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 08:42 AM
Nadal at RG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete at Wimbledon.

How many times did prime-Sampras get straight-setted on Grass?

TMF
09-23-2012, 08:46 AM
So? Sampras had 7 wimbledon titles and fed had 0 in 2001 and Sampras was defending champion and fed won that match. Im not saying DJokovic wouldve won for sure im just saying that logic is flawedDjokovic has 0 FO and Nadal has 7. Let's not get carried away by saying Djokovic would have won had he reached the final last year.

Not to mention Fed was only 19 when he beat Sampras, but in 2011 Nole was in god mode and already straight sets Nadal twice on clay. Also, Fed was a huge underdog in 2001, but Nole would be the favorite if he made the 2011 final.

TMF
09-23-2012, 08:50 AM
Nadal at RG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete at Wimbledon.

That's debatable. If a 19 years old Fed can beat a 7 time Wimdledon champions, it's ridiculous not to believe a peak Nole in 2011 wouldn't beat Nadal at RG when he's already defeated Nadal multiple times in that year alone.

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 09:48 AM
That's debatable. If a 19 years old Fed can beat a 7 time Wimdledon champions, it's ridiculous not to believe a peak Nole in 2011 wouldn't beat Nadal at RG when he's already defeated Nadal multiple times in that year alone.

Pete was almost 30. Rafa was 25.

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 09:49 AM
Since when is tennis supposed to be played in the dark where both players can barely see? Come on now, don't apply double standards.

Rafa played better through the whole match in Wimbledon 2008. Novak was losing pretty clearly before the court became mud...

Clarky21
09-23-2012, 09:52 AM
Rafa played better through the whole match in Wimbledon 2008. Novak was losing pretty clearly before the court became mud...



This is exactly what I was going to say. Fed was fortunate that Nadal choked or else he would have lost in straights. **** should have,and would have lost in straights too if not for the rain turning the court into a muddy mess.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:03 AM
This is exactly what I was going to say. Fed was fortunate that Nadal choked or else he would have lost in straights. **** should have,and would have lost in straights too if not for the rain turning the court into a muddy mess.

No the 4th set tiebreak was all fed!! but the 5th nadal choked when he double faulted. But even when he had those 2 MP cant really blame him! Fed hit a superb first serve to save 1 and a money backhand passer to save 2!

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 10:08 AM
Since when is tennis supposed to be played in the dark where both players can barely see? Come on now, don't apply double standards.

Nadal led 6-4 6-4 and should have won in 3 or 4 sets. Nadal was always in a position to win the match. Djokovic, on the other hand, got lucky with a muddy court, and I'm glad they postponed the match so we could see what SHOULD have happened in the 3rd set of Roland Garros 2012.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:10 AM
Nadal led 6-4 6-4 and should have won in 3 or 4 sets. Nadal was always in a position to win the match. Djokovic, on the other hand, got lucky with a muddy court, and I'm glad they postponed the match so we could see what SHOULD have happened in the 3rd set of Roland Garros 2012.

Please!! Your man just got outplayed!! and lost like 7 games in a row on his fav surface if it went on im pretty sure Djokovic wouldve won that set but i dont know maybe it was too muddy but even the RG final in 2009 had a bit of drizzling

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 10:13 AM
This is exactly what I was going to say. Fed was fortunate that Nadal choked or else he would have lost in straights. **** should have,and would have lost in straights too if not for the rain turning the court into a muddy mess.

Yep. The point is one cannot say Fed lost because of the darkness, since it was Rafa who had the upper hand all through the match. In the 2012 RG final the case was very different, Rafa had control of the match so we can very well say that the muddy conditions played a big part on Novak coming back for a moment.

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 10:14 AM
Please!! Your man just got outplayed!! and lost like 7 games in a row on his fav surface if it went on im pretty sure Djokovic wouldve won that set but i dont know maybe it was too muddy but even the RG final in 2009 had a bit of drizzling

I don't think you're getting the point.

6-1 6-3 6-0
09-23-2012, 10:15 AM
Please!! Your man just got outplayed!! and lost like 7 games in a row on his fav surface if it went on im pretty sure Djokovic wouldve won that set but i dont know maybe it was too muddy but even the RG final in 2009 had a bit of drizzling

In Roland Garros 2009, the balls weren't as heavy as they were in Roland Garros 2012, and the rain wasn't as heavy either. Djokovic already won his fluke set in the third, no need for him to get another fluke set.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:17 AM
Yep. The point is one cannot say Fed lost because of the darkness, since it was Rafa who had the upper hand all through the match. In the 2012 RG final the case was very different, Rafa had control of the match so we can very well say that the muddy conditions played a big part on Novak coming back for a moment.

I agree with that but fed did have breakpoint at 4-3 in the 5th but he couldnt convert as usual

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:18 AM
In Roland Garros 2009, the balls weren't as heavy as they were in Roland Garros 2012, and the rain wasn't as heavy either. Djokovic already won his fluke set in the third, no need for him to get another fluke set.

was it only muddy on the side nadal was playing on?? how was it fluke?? same conditions!! Just like nadal beat fed fair and square at wimby 2008 darkness was for both players!! Muddyness was for both players except Fed doesnt go crazy and start complaining to the tournament director when he's losing

Mustard
09-23-2012, 10:21 AM
was it only muddy on the side nadal was playing on?? how was it fluke?? same conditions!! Just like nadal beat fed fair and square at wimby 2008 darkness was for both players!! Muddyness was for both players except Fed doesnt go crazy and start complaining to the tournament director when he's losing

Are you sure about that? Federer definitely complained about the darkness afterwards and he looked annoyed in the last game of the match with some of his shots. Still, it wasn't exactly like Fognini vs. Monfils at the 2010 French Open.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 10:39 AM
Are you sure about that? Federer definitely complained about the darkness afterwards and he looked annoyed in the last game of the match with some of his shots. Still, it wasn't exactly like Fognini vs. Monfils at the 2010 French Open.

now that was BAD!!!! Fed complained about it in the post match press conference not during

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 10:57 AM
was it only muddy on the side nadal was playing on?? how was it fluke?? same conditions!! Just like nadal beat fed fair and square at wimby 2008 darkness was for both players!! Muddyness was for both players except Fed doesnt go crazy and start complaining to the tournament director when he's losing

It obviously hurt Rafa's game more.

RF20Lennon
09-23-2012, 12:06 PM
It obviously hurt Rafa's game more.

Thats like saying clay hurts federer's surface more so all Rafa's wins on him there are fluke

Hood_Man
09-23-2012, 12:22 PM
I remember Federer had words with the umpire, I think in that last game, during that 2008 Final. And some muttering to himself too, and then got on with things.

There's bound to be footage of it on Youtube, I just don't really want to look for it :( ;)

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 12:48 PM
Thats like saying clay hurts federer's surface more so all Rafa's wins on him there are fluke

No, it really is not. This were not normal playing conditions.

Tennis_Hands
09-23-2012, 01:31 PM
It's funny how the anti-Nadal brigade just assume that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal in this hypothetical match. It's even funnier to see how much it bothers them that Nadal won the 2011 French Open.

:roll:

10LadiesofSerbia

Mustard
09-23-2012, 05:00 PM
:roll:

10LadiesofSerbia

Hurts you too, does it?

Crisstti
09-23-2012, 06:01 PM
Hurts you too, does it?

It's also funny how some of them hate Rafa more than they like Fed, and would have wanted Fed to lose that (incredible) match...

Prisoner of Birth
09-23-2012, 06:47 PM
It's also funny how some of them hate Rafa more than they like Fed, and would have wanted Fed to lose that (incredible) match...

Perhaps they're Djokovic fans. But if they call themselves Federer fans, that's just pathetic.

flyinghippos101
09-23-2012, 06:51 PM
It's also funny how some of them hate Rafa more than they like Fed, and would have wanted Fed to lose that (incredible) match...

Oh please, the Nadal camp has more than enough "fans" that do the same thing

jokinla
09-23-2012, 11:38 PM
He lost in the semis, no.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 09:25 AM
This is exactly what I was going to say. Fed was fortunate that Nadal choked or else he would have lost in straights. **** should have,and would have lost in straights too if not for the rain turning the court into a muddy mess.

True on both counts. Nadal's choke is the only thing that turned the 2008 Wimbledon final into the epic all time great match it was.

As for this threads poll it presumes alot for a guy who has never beaten Nadal at RG, didnt make his first RG final until this year, and lost to old Federer in the semis, but Planet TW polls are merely for comedic purposes anyway.

TMF
10-02-2012, 09:41 AM
True on both counts. Nadal's choke is the only thing that turned the 2008 Wimbledon final into the epic all time great match it was.

As for this threads poll it presumes alot for a guy who has never beaten Nadal at RG, didnt make his first RG final until this year, and lost to old Federer in the semis, but Planet TW polls are merely for comedic purposes anyway.

But Nole match up better against Nadal than Fed, that's inlude on hc, not just clay. 2011 Nole had beaten Nadal twice on clay MS who was the defending champion. Had Nole made the FO final he clearly has the psychological advantage.

RF20Lennon
10-02-2012, 09:43 AM
But Nole match up better against Nadal than Fed, that's inlude on hc, not just clay. 2011 Nole had beaten Nadal twice on clay MS who was the defending champion. Had Nole made the FO final he clearly has the psychological advantage.

I agree!!!

TMF
10-02-2012, 10:12 AM
I agree!!!

Thanks. It's not a slam dunk that Nole would win, but heading into the FO it was all about Nole because he was undefeated that year. He was 4-0 against Nadal, and facing Nadal again at the FO i think just about everyone would pick Nole to beat him. That was during the FO, but at the end of the year fans would be even more convince because Nole beat him at W and USO(went undeated against Nadal that year!).

dangalak
10-02-2012, 11:08 AM
No doubt he would've won.

Thanks Feddy for preventing Djokovic's CYGS. :)

Crisstti
10-02-2012, 12:11 PM
But Nole match up better against Nadal than Fed, that's inlude on hc, not just clay. 2011 Nole had beaten Nadal twice on clay MS who was the defending champion. Had Nole made the FO final he clearly has the psychological advantage.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he would have won.

Semi-Pro
10-02-2012, 04:33 PM
Yes, but that doesn't mean he would have won.

Did you miss the part where he said it is not a slam dunk nole would win???

Crisstti
10-02-2012, 04:59 PM
Did you miss the part where he said it is not a slam dunk nole would win???

It was in another post, but no, I didn't. Just putting some emphasis on it.