Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by YodaKnowsBest, Jan 27, 2011.
You believe me now?
I do mate, I do
I don't believe you, even when you ask a question.
Holmes: Now now Yoda, I replied courteously in your other thread as to why I don't think he is, accounting for his full history of the tournament in comparison to Federer's And there was no reply...
That said, I stated a while back that I can't see Fedal taking the AO this year...
That said 2. Novak is playing great, from both wings, with determination. As it stands, he thoroughly deserves to win it.
That's right. Only heat, cramps, blisters, back ache, asthma, sore throat and Andy Roddick can stop him.
Murray/Ferrer thinks otherwise...though want Djoko to win!
I have never seen anyone manhandle Rog like that. He was making him miss a lot.
Yoda knows best, doubt Yoda and you get lightsabered.
I said Djoko would go to the finals vs. somebody not Fed/Nadal after I saw his first match at the AO '11.
I guess I was right.
You taking him to win the title now?
Who exactly are you talking to?
I saw this coming since USO.
Not rocket science really the way he's been playing.
I mentioned it in another topic, but yes, Djoko all the way, and deservedly so.
Djokovic has always played well in Australia or Us Open when he gets to the last couple of rounds in the tournament.He might not win every big match but he always gets himself a chance.
His biggest hurdle has always been surviving those day matches in the heat.He could have gone in first round last year at the Us Open and this year he got fortunate Dodig ran out of gas in set 3 in his second round or it could have been another brutal match
... which means he likes cool, dead courts.
If Djokovic hits more errors than winners he will lose against Murray in the final.
Totally agree and sorry didnt see the other post till now! Djoker playing sublime tennis backed up his Aus Open form and has beaten Federer so it wouldnt be a default win! as would be the case with Murray by avoiding Fedal! As lon as Djoker keeps his head am very confident he will win the title.
Djoker will win that title if he continues to play like he did. It's pretty rare to see anyone boss around Fed on the tennis court like Djoker did last night. He was in beast mode.
I'm hoping to see a Djokovic vs Murray final, though I think Ferrer could upset Murray.
Oh here we feckin go. Murray isn't even in the final yet and we've got cretinous pre-emptive assertions seeking to devalue a win he hasn't had yet.
Tell me, was Roger's first slam win a 'default win'? He only played two seeds, never faced a top five player and played the world number 48 in the final.
Did you miss the Shanghai final?
You could argue this back and forth.
Djokovic avoided a tough match in the sun when Troicki retired after one set.
Take it that doesn't count in your winning by default logic?
Your hatred of Murray is really clouding your view.
I see you're from little England.
It's quiet now... I love the sound when *******s have nothing to say.
Holmes: Pah, no you don't, you love cutting them down May you enjoy today (and Sunday if Novak wins) and rejoice in your shining light!
While I'm a little disappointed with the outcome, I pray to god this new improved Djokovic is a permanent one. I don't mind rooting for him if he plays like that all the time.
It's extra quiet around here, because *******s AND *******s have been forced to eat humble pie. The classy Federer and Nadal fans don't need to constantly be saying how their player is God. These guys play on a very elite level, and on any given day, anyone can lose. Kudos to Federer and Nadal that they have managed to do what they have done, despite the strains of being expected to perform day in and day out.
Djokovic's form is really impressive and looks to be tough to beat. But beating Federer is one thing and beating Murray is a whole different story.
I would wait before I start my celebration, if I were you.
Don't get your hopes too high yourself either. If Murray plays the way he played vs Dolgolonopov and Ferrer plays the way he played vs Nadal, Murray is in trouble.
I have to say, you're on the money with this one.
I wanted to reply but the thread was deleted.
Djokovic is unbeatable here since 2008 and with unbeatable I mean only against the players. He's still vulnarable against the heat and some flu's.
I still can't figure out who's failure I enjoy the most. Today I will enjoy Federer's and compare it with Nadal's from yesterday.
Here's an interesting fact -- Murray has beaten Djokovic the last three times they played.
I will believe it, if he wins. I think he looks great, and is probably the fav now, but it's not over. Murray hasn't faced a real test yet, you never know!
Well I don't know about you but I thought Dolgolonopov gave Murray quite a scare. He already had his first test, he's about to get another one.
He played the world #48 who beat Stepanek, Agassi, and Grosjean on his way to the final.
He also played Roddick who was the 5 seed. Schalken who was the 8 seed. Both who were/are absurdly good players on grass. He also played Mardy Fish and Felciano Lopez, both who are also really good on grass. Just remember, do your homework before trying to compare this slam to Murray's current potential slam, which has been filled with hacks other than Melzer, who flat out didn't even play anywhere close to his potential, and Dolgopolov, who is a rookie, and although potentially dangerous, really shouldn't be a threat to Murray if Murray is as good as you and others say he is.
Try doing it in a slam, Federer simply does not redline in a Masters even if it is a final. The only non-slam tournaments he redlines in these days are Basel and the World Tennis Final. Occasionally he will try and redline at a Masters BEFORE an important event, such as Madrid in 2008, but he rarely does that unless he has been playing poorly. Notice how in years past that Federer has won Cincinnati despite the fact that historically he has done pretty poorly at that tournament? If you discount his horrible 2008 performance against Karlovic, he has won 3 out of 4, beating very tough opponents on his way to the title. And this is a title that is notorious for top players tanking. Why then does Federer play hard here? Because it is right before the USO, and he wants to tune his game up.
Stark contrast to say IW and Miami, although important tournaments, are not followed up by a slam. Federer historically used to dominate those tournaments, and no longer does.
Djokovic's win is impressive because he straight up man handled a Federer who wasn't playing poorly at all. In fact, Federer was playing as well as he could considering the circumstances.
Actually, you are right. Forgot about that match. Dolgo was all over the place during that match, but Murray played really well too.
Don't forget those darned contact lenses
An interesting observation and well supported. However, I think we all know the REAL reason for his Cincinatti dominance is that, being an avid reader of the TT forums, once he realized Cincinatti was in the the REAL slam, he decided he would win it every year because 20 > 8
Your absolutely right, Federer is much harder to beat. And Murray still has to beat Ferrer.
I am not even a Federer fan and I will say this is a retarded thread. If Djokovic were "unbeatable" in Australia he would have more than 1 title now. And even if he wins a 2nd this year he still would be far from unbeatable. Unbeatable is someone who wins 5 or 6 titles maybe.
Finally we agree on something.
And finally we can settle your petty shadowing of me on this forum, with a 3 set beat down from Andrew Murray.
Come on now, careful not to tar all of us Englanders with ark-**** brush
And if Murray were to make final and win he'd have beaten the world number 3 and the guys who beat Roger Federer.
Roddick was ranked 6th and Shengen was ranked 12. They were the only 2 seeds he faced. Those are the facts. The rest of your post is opinion dressed as fact.
A Roddick fan can simply not complain of someone else having a cake walk draw after that 2003 route roddick had.
But a djoko-Murray final is gonna be a cracker.
Except both Roddick and Schalken are better players on grass then their rankings show evidenced by their seeding. Just because Davydenko was ranked 4th at some point did not mean he was the 4th best player on grass now does it?
Until Murray shows up and beats Federer / Nadal in a slam, he still hasn't shown that he's gotten anywhere. He did it ONCE where he played very aggressive, and that was a very good match. I give credit where credit is due. However, he has not done that yet in recent times, and continues to fall short despite massive hype behind him.
Murray has beaten Nadal twice in slams. There has been no Murray hype this year. You are talking out of your arse if you are seriously arguing that Murray winning the AO would somehow be a lesser achievement because he didn't beat Nadal or Roger. You're not really arguing that are you?
Look Nam, I am in no way trying to diminish Roger's first slam - quite the contrary. Nor am I saying that Murray winning the AO would be a mirror image of Roger winning Wimby 2003 - it wouldn't.
All I'm saying is that Murray winning the AO would be no more a 'default win' than Roger winning Wimby in 2003 - nor would it be any less of an achievement. You will be taking Murray hate to new heights if you think otherwise.
No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.
It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.
So did Federer ... 'till very recently :mrgreen:
So you would have absolutely no problems with accepting this for Roddick?
And Federer wasn't fortunate for having Nadal eliminated from 09 French Open semi only to have to face Soderling in the final? You have fan boy rose tinted glasses on.
Holmes: Ooh! Ooh! Can I play? What about Ralph's win at the US Open last year? Talk about- ah, forget it.....
This type of argument could go on and on, as could most over the last 48 hours. Whoever wins it on Sunday, will no doubt deserve it!
Separate names with a comma.