tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I am not a Djokovic fan but the fact is that he had to battle and still has to battle against two of the greatest players of all time in Nadal and Federer. Not easy.
Compare that to competition that Rafa faced.
I am not a Djokovic fan but the fact is that he had to battle and still has to battle against two of the greatest players of all time in Nadal and Federer. Not easy.
Compare that to competition that Rafa faced.
Joker is not the choker.
Joker is the comeback king and Fed is the fifth set choker.
But Djokovic did win a major at the AO in 2008 and he beat Federer along the way. All I am saying is that Djokovic did win a slam at age 20 and he was projected to do big things from a young age unlike most players these days. He was right in there with Federer and Nadal at age 19 battling it out and giving them headaches. I think people always predicted that he would win a slam. What they did not predict was that he would win a slam in 2008 and then not win another one for three more years. That is an odd trajectory.
I am not a Djokovic fan but the fact is that he had to battle and still has to battle against two of the greatest players of all time in Nadal and Federer. Not easy.
Why do you even feel the need to state that cc0? :???: You're hardly the first person to say something nice about someone without liking him.
You are trying to tell me what I can or cannot post now?
I'm simply saying that there's no need to state it when saying something nice about someone you dislike. Who cares whether or not you're a fan of Djokovic?
....says it all
Obviously you do. :twisted:
I will state what I want in a post. Thanks for the advice.
It's not a prerequisite though. You make out that some anonymous poster on an internet forum will think worse of you if they assume you're a Djokovic fan. No one cares! :?
Yet it is rather rare. It really is. At least in this forum.Why do you even feel the need to state that cc0? :???: You're hardly the first person to say something nice about someone without liking him.
But clearly it bothers you if I state I am not a Djokovic fan. Just because you like attention-seeking players such as Djokovic and Navratilova and I don't, it is not my problem. :twisted:
Lol, it doesn't bother me, I just don't know why you feel the need to state it in the first place. Like I said, no one on here cares who you like. And it's not my problem that you don't like the fact I like attention-seeking players. Deal with it! :twisted:
I don't believe you. :twisted:
You don't like the fact that I dislike Djokovic. Yet here I am still defending Djokovic against posters like tennisaddict of all posters who was trying to say that Djokovic was not a rare talent who had the promise of winning slams from a young age. Clearly Djokovic showed tons of promise at a young age.
Couldn't care less who you like or dislike, I just think from now on you don't need to state beforehand that you're not a fan of a player that you're complimenting at the time. Jeez cc0, anyone would think I'm asking for world peace.
What part of my post makes you think I'm a crybaby cc0? :?
The first thing I learned on this forum, about 6 months ago, is that any time you criticize a player, for any reason, even a very legitimate one, you will immediately be labeled as a hater, or prejudiced.Couldn't care less who you like or dislike, I just think from now on you don't need to state beforehand that you're not a fan of a player that you're complimenting at the time. Jeez cc0, anyone would think I'm asking for world peace.
1. I dont find your logic here. Nadal is a rival to Fed as much is he to Djokovic. My point was that 3 players from Federers weak era probably have more wins against the top 3 than a "X" size of guys that reached top 10 in 2011-2014. My point being that after the decline/retirement from Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Davydenko the likes of Djokovic, Murray and on some degree Nadal were able to dominate post 2010.
2. If Federer is good enough to be number 2 with a chance for number 1 at 33 than imagine how good he was in his prime years. This is easy to understand.
3. Until 2014 most guys in top 20 were from Federers era, imagine the lack of dept. And again I dont get your point, Robredo in his peak years was a solid top 20.Ten years later he is again top 20 being past his best physical prime. On paper Tommy declined but yet he still has the same ranking which means that the overall quality has just dropped.
4. The difference between number 18(Spadea) and number 9/10(Monaco, Fish, Melzer) is a Slam title in number of points. So please what are you trying to say here? Schuttler is just turning 28 when he reached number 5 which is still a prime year for tennis.
5. Here is a stat, from 2001-2009 Ferrer never reached a Master final(exclude the WTF) with Federers generation, 81 tries and from 2010-2014 he reached 7 from 45. There is no late peaking/finding your mojjo that can explain this thing. Simple put, the overall quality dropped so that someone like Ferrer from a constant top 20 to raise to a constant top 8.
And yet he was 3000k points behind Djokovic.
You didn't even refute or understand a single thing I said, but you continue to smash out a wall of irrelevant nonsense that doesn't address what I wrote. It seems that you don't have much experience with topics like stats and causality. You're not so concise with terminology when discussing these issues either. All of this makes a serious discussion unattainable.
Yes you can disagree to the same degree that you can disagree that 2+2=4. Logic is follows necessary rules. It is an unfounded inference to say that this stat shows anything true about "your fear of winning" or any other sort of mental strength. Again, this is the point of just-so stories, and you clearly didn't understand it, or else we wouldn't have to go over it again. That the ATP has the stats and gives them a name like "reliability index" doesn't mean that they "are with you" in that it shows something that "tests your fear of winning" or anything meaningful about mental strength.
Do you even read? Winning from two sets down is choking? Sure. I don't even . . .
1. :lol::lol: I quite empirically presented the causality I was talking about. Yet as usual you come up with blunt denials and one line rebuttals without a single line of logical reasoning why it doesn't make sense. At least I dont evade your points.
2. So what exactly are reliability indices on their site? They categorize the specific index under "on pressure situations". What more do you want? I tried to dumb it down to you that players do choke after having the lead. To not choke is mental strength. Someone cant see it. And cant see it the ATP site too see it that way. You are not being fair or reasonable.
Better to get to match point than not get to match point, no?40-15×3
25 matches lost after having MP.
End of the discussion.