Djokovic is unbeatable in Australia

Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by YodaKnowsBest, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,598
    PMSL. You are taking Murray hate to new levels - brilliant:). So if he wins, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished - but he wouldn't be an 'elite' player who 'won' his slam. OK - there's nothing remotely incoherent about that statement.

    I often wondered what kind of bitter pish you'd come out with if Murray ever won a slam - now I guess we can all see.

    If Murray wins he'll have beaten two top ten players - unlike Roger in his first slam, who only faced one top ten player. I guess Roger wasn't an 'elite'player until he 'won' some subsequent slams - as the criteria you seem to want to apply to Murray this year would surely have also applied to Roger in 2003.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
    #51
  2. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Hey I missed you. :lol: I wouldn't mind Murray winning a slam and I'm sure he will someday, but not this year in Australia. I think if he improves his serve more especialy his 2nd serve he might win Wimbledon. He got big support over there.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
    #52
  3. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    If Murray wins this by any chance under fair conditions then I'll give him credit.

    Roddick is nothing more than a clown who filled up the last missing holes in the ATP. His task was to keep the rankings warm for the upcoming generation.

    Nadal was incedibly lucky at the last years USO. He had his own puppet in the quarters who just came off from a 5-setter. Youznhy in the semis who also played a tough 5-setter in the previous round. And then the finals where you would think his lucky streak will finaly come to an end, but no he gets another dead-tired opponent who suprisingly took a set from him.

    But having said that I also must mention Federer's FO. He had some easy opponents and still had troubles making the finals. He avoided the top 5 like in many other slams and that's the reason for his success.
     
    #53
  4. Fedex

    Fedex Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,741
    Location:
    Dundee
    I said little England as in small minded people as in little Britain.
    You certainly don't fall into that category.
     
    #54
  5. Fedex

    Fedex Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,741
    Location:
    Dundee
    And you could argue that Murray has been unfortunate in other slams eg scheduling and draws and still made it to two slam finals and gone far in most other slams.
    I don't think you could say Murray would be a weak Slam winner.
    It's not like he's some sort of fluke.
    Let's see if he wins it first. I think beating someone as good as Djokovic would be proof enough.
     
    #55
  6. Polvorin

    Polvorin Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    817
    Of course Gaudio is the ultimate example, and I freaking love Gaudio. :)
     
    #56
  7. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,725
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Exactly. Kafelnikov made plenty of consistently good appearances at all 4 slams (ESPECIALLY the French where a clay all time great had to fight for his life some 3 times to beat him late in the tournament, and went on to win), and yet idiots say he "got lucky" to win the French.
    He put himself in a position to win many times at both the French and the AO. That's not luck, that's odds and good f*cking play.
    Gaudio is the perfect example for "lucky" as he never EVER! made any good to great run in a slam except for his fluke win.
    Cedric Pioline is a much more worthy player of winning a slam than Gaudio ever was...and yet he is "slamless".
    People who bring up Kafelnikov's major wins as the "prime examples of lucky wins" are :
    a) biased
    b) lack tennis knowledge
    c) retarded
     
    #57
  8. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    While Kafelnikov was often a reasonably solid performer at the French outside of his FO title there were many guys in his own era considered better clay courters. Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Rios, and Kuerten all by a huge margin. Then also Moya, Corretja, Costa, Agassi. Even guys like Mantilla, Medvedev, and Chang you could argue. Yet even guys like Rios and Corretja never won the French. Add to that the year he won the French he wasnt one of the favorites and ALL the favorites this year crashed out before the quarters, and that he spanked badly later that year in his clay court meeting with then clay court king Muster. Can anyone say he would have had even a tiny hope of winning that French if Stich didnt pull the upset of his career by beating Muster on clay. Add all that together and it is easy to see why many have surmised he was lucky to win a French.
     
    #58
  9. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    Fed never had the game to beat a Djokovic in this form.
    This guy is just too good for him, as simple as that.
    Backhand no contest, Djokovic upgraded his forehand to a level above Fed's.
     
    #59
  10. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,725
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    "Were considered" based on what?? Your subjective impressions ?? Let's take them all into discussion one by one, and in more detail than "your general impressions".
    Ah, let me just start with the fact that "reasonably solid performer at the French" with regards to Kafelnikov's performances is the understatement of the decade.

    Yes, Muster was one and he beat a young K once at the French quite convincingly (semi-final) and went on to win, and Kuerten is the "clay all time great" I was talking about so they are obvious. Kuerten, like Muster also beat him on his way to winning in advanced stages (quarters??) and twice in 5 and once in 4 tight sets.
    But they also won their respective French Championships, and their victories over Kafelnikov are actually taken into account in the final results/numbers. Muster's 95 semi final, and Kuerten's 3 victories in his 3 runs to the title. So ... those 2 are "accounted for".
    One could actually argue that AT LEAST in 97 Kafelnikov was defending champion and actually heavy favourite to win the whole thing (from the guys left in the quarters), and if not for Guga coming out of nowhere with his huge groundstrokes and being inspired by some divine interventions and surviving tough 5 setters against Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov and then proceeding to blow Dewulf and Bruguera off the court, K had a more than reasonable chance that year.

    Bruguera and Courier were probably more dominant in their respective primes (although Bruguera was more of an "up and down" kind of guy than Courier was), but they were "done" by the time Kafelnikov was a consistent threat at the French.

    AA - was a great player but he had nothing on Kafelnikov on clay. He was comfortably dismissed in straight sets by that exact player (K) while being the world number one and current AO champion in 95, while at the top of his game (in what I consider one of the best if not his best year). It took an unbeatable (on clay) Muster to get rid of Kafelnikov that year at the French in the freakin' semis. Also, AA's overall results at the French don't justify your "opinion" that he was a better player than K on clay. His "Medvedev win" was Medvedev choking not AA blowing him off the court or performing some "dazzling recovery" like the American media probably made it look (yes, I saw the match). Albeit a consistently good performer at the French one might argue that HIS FO win was much more of a "fluke" than Kafelnikov's.

    Rios, albeit an extremely talented ball striker and tennis player, and a great clay courter, is again, not a better player than Kafelnikov (no, not even on clay). He had great results in best of 3 sets tournaments on clay, but he was never better than Kafelnikov at the french or in any Slam (best of 5 format). His problems in 5 sets matches were both physical and mental. He was one of the guys I absolutely LOVED watching when in form but, a bit like Korda (another supremely talented player) was extremely frustrating to watch when things didn't go his way.
    Where's that huge margin he has over Kafelnikov when he never even made a FO final ?? He was a consistent 4th round/quarters kind of guy and nothing more.

    I won't even address Mantilla because bringing him into this discussion is an absolute JOKE. He had reasonably good performances on clay, and was a consistent performer on clay while also winning lots of b rated titles/matches on the red stuff. His best performance at the French was a semi, and it wasn't like he was doing that every year. He was always a "guest starring" in this movie, not even a "supporting actor" let alone a "leading one". You are seriously reaching by mentioning him.

    You added Moya, Alex C, and Costa to the list only because they are part of the "Spanish armada" so they must have been better players on clay.
    I'll challenge you to bring their comparative results on clay up and we can discuss them.
    I'm talking about results in important tournaments, please don't come up with "titles in Marbella, Umag and Buenos Aires" as arguments as I'll just dismiss them as irrelevant.
    Kafelnikov being the much more complete/all surface player than all 3 guys, never avoided hard court/grass/whatever surface tournaments to go and play small clay tournaments in order to win points and money like ALL the Spanish players did in that period.

    Moya was a great player and he won his French. He was never a more consistently brilliant player than Kafelnikov, but he WAS the guy with the highest "peak/talent" from the 3 you mentioned. Not higher than Kafelnikov though ...
    Costa and Corretja were two extremely consistent and sometimes great players on clay. Albeit I liked them both, and I used to absolutely drool over Costa's 1 hander, their peak was not high enough to beat "anyone on ANY surface" even on their best day. Nope, not even on clay.
    Guys like Bruguera, Kafelnikov and even Moya, could compete and maybe even beat in-form "Kuertens" (he's just an example, don't come up with head to heads...I'm just making a point here) and on their day they could reach the clouds and be unplayable for anybody.
    Guys like Costa or Corretja...never could achieve such heights, they simply didn't have the game for it, didn't have enough weapons. They were grinders, and that was it.
    Not the "grinder with weapons" kind that Nadal is, they were not even close to his attacking powers.
    Corretja actually deserved better, he (IMO) actually deserved a freaking French title more than Costa (although I preferred watching Costa play) and certainly more than a guy like Gaudio. Unfortunately his "undoing" was that lack of "peak play" when it really mattered. The truth was that when maxing out ones potential, there were just too many players who were better than him "on the day". He could never blow people off the court like Kuerten did, and grinding them off the court for 7 straight best of 5 set matches @ Roland Garros was unfortunately beyond his will and power.

    Medvedev albeit a hugely talented player, didn't show the consistent results. He SHOULD HAVE beaten AA to be a French Open champion, but he chocked. Such is life, I'm already bored of providing serious arguments so I'll just stop.

    In other words, other than Kuerten (doh) and Muster the only other player that is comparable is Chang. You could argue Chang was right there with K in terms of results at the French.
    Corretja would be better if he would have got a title. He didn't...so he isn't.

    Anyway, this post is way too long, and I'm bored of taking it seriously. Peace.
     
    #60
  11. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    nah... Nadal suffered a injury and we all know that when fully fit, nadal is unbeaten. so, afaic ferrer lost and so did murray, and so will joker...

    nadal is the real winner of the 2011 AO.




    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011
    #61
  12. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Oke, as long as we agree that Djokovic is the winner of 2011. :D
     
    #62
  13. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,279
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    typo...

    Nadal won the 2011 period. you can argue what you want... Nadal is 100% winner when he wins...

    he is the real winner... you won't convince me otherwise, since i give no credence to facts over my opinion...


    :)

    ps: Vamos...
     
    #63
  14. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,188
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    ^^ Nadal can never beat a Đoković in this form. It's irrelevant that Đoković is never in this form when they meet or that Đoković's peak doesn't last more than a couple days.

    Đoković is the real GOAT.
     
    #64
  15. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Thank god someone is with me. You are always welcome in my threads. :lol:
     
    #65
  16. ksbh

    ksbh Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,155
    Agreed! Djokovic in this kind of form cannot be stopped. Just beat a peak Federer in 3 straight sets, something I doubt Nadal could have done at any time in their careers on a hard court. And yes, in this form Nole would have beaten Nadal more convincingly than he beat Federer

    Nole is going to win this AO. Either straight sets or in 4 over Andy Murray in the final.

     
    #66
  17. forthegame

    forthegame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,495
    Location:
    Intercontinental
    2009, 2010
     
    #67
  18. Polvorin

    Polvorin Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    817
    Dude, Corretja had consistently good results on clay including the French Open which he would have won multiple times if not for the fact that he was a huge choker at times (that '96 USO quarter probably gave him some mental problems, understandably).

    On the other hand, Kafelnikov won a grand total of THREE clay court titles in his entire career. If that one FO doesn't scream fluke, I don't know what does. Just the fact that he won it doesn't make him a better clay courter than Corretja. Better overall player, sure, but on clay? No way.
     
    #68
  19. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Based on what?

    Nadal beat Djoker on the much faster courts of USO. Granted, Nadal was not in USO form, but Djoker's CC BH which murdered Fed's 1-H BH would go to Nadal's fh on these slow,high bouncing courts and he would be forced to got DTL with the BH far more often, a more difficult shot to pull off.

    Also, how is this peak Federer? Peak Fed loses sets to Robredo :) ?
     
    #69
  20. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,055
    These courts aren't high bouncing. Nadal's shots would sit up perfectly for Djokovic to smack.
     
    #70
  21. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    What? They look pretty high bouncing to me.

    Even if they aren't, Nadal beat Djoker on the low bouncing and much faster courts of USO. Trust me, if Nadal meet Djoker in AO(only in final) with history on the line, he will fight until the last point to get it, regardless of conditions. Nadal brings his best to GS finals.
     
    #71
  22. ksbh

    ksbh Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,155
    Yes you're right .. Nadal wasn't in USO form but more importantly, Djokovic isn't in his USO form either, he's much better! A combination of these two factors indicates to me, regardless of the exaggeration in my earlier post, that Nole could have handled Nadal.

    And anyone that can beat a healthy Federer playing quite well in straight sets in the way that Nole did has got to have very good chances against any player!

     
    #72
  23. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    He does actually. Obviously someone has a little hazy memory. FO 2007, one set lost.
     
    #73
  24. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    i am pulling for djokovic but the title of this thread is premature because there is one match left and murray could prove that djokovic is beatable in australia.
     
    #74
  25. Raoul_Duke

    Raoul_Duke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Gonzoland
    Naaahh ... Yoda Knows Best.
     
    #75
  26. TBrady

    TBrady Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    On a court hitting big top
    Yodaknowsnothing,

    Djokovic will lose Sunday. And Yoda is dead.
     
    #76
  27. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    Looks like we both have our prediction. Will you please drop by on sunday after the match? Thank you
     
    #77
  28. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,055
    The US Open is both faster and higher bouncing compared to the Australian Open. Australian Open is known for being a slightly dead surface. Ball stays low and doesn't go through the court. Especially at night. Just look up plexicushion and it will mention this. Nadal barely won his only Australian Open (easy draw) and got destroyed every other time he tried.
     
    #78
  29. TBrady

    TBrady Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    On a court hitting big top
    Except your GOAT part is just ludicrous.
     
    #79
  30. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yoda...when Djokovic win the Aussie...don't rub it in like the *******s and *******s do when their players win slams. It better not to say anything...it proves who is the bigger person in the forum!

    I feel like there is going to be a crazy djokovich jumping with you leading the pack which more likely then the murray tards consisting of a returning maximo!
     
    #80
  31. YodaKnowsBest

    YodaKnowsBest Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Location:
    Strong Era aka Novak-Novak era
    What goes around comes around. In 2007-2008 Djokovic fans were seriously outnumbered here and the hate towards Djokovic grew even bigger after each tournament he played. This hate was passed on Murray who is still one of the biggest targets on this forum. Tards deserve everything that is coming to them.
     
    #81
  32. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,188
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Nole has this in the bag. He "just has to show up" as they say, and collect the cheque.
     
    #82
  33. Beryl

    Beryl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,983
    Two years later, still can't argue much with the title...
     
    #83
  34. kalyan4fedever

    kalyan4fedever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    Dont say that WAWA almost got it this ao
     
    #84
  35. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,553
    Location:
    Weak era
    Novak, unbeatable GOAT at AO :)

    You're missed, great jedi master.
     
    #85
  36. Telepatic

    Telepatic Legend

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    7,167
    Location:
    Serbia, Belgrade
    yoda knows best.
     
    #86
  37. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    Too bad Yoda can't enjoy the Djoko era. Djokovic deserving winner....will lose one day in Australia....to a non-choking Wawrinka.
     
    #87
  38. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    what a mighty bump!
     
    #88
  39. TheF1Bob

    TheF1Bob Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,473
    Location:
    NON-Pigeon City
    Djoko will win another 5 at least. 8)
     
    #89
  40. Harry_Wild

    Harry_Wild Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,192
    Nole started the year again winning the Australian Open. Will he try to beat his 2011 win streak?
     
    #90
  41. SQA333

    SQA333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,518
    He should focus on beating his 2012 streak first.
     
    #91
  42. New Era UK

    New Era UK Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Well looks to me someone was right and has not been treated that well...
     
    #92
  43. Raoul_Duke

    Raoul_Duke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Gonzoland
    One fine day, the main court of the new tennis complex in Melbourne will be named after Novak Djokovic :)
     
    #93

Share This Page