The real reason why Djokovic won two slams? Two words. John Isner.

[Djokodal Fan]

They did so because the match had been started under the roof. Absurd reasoning (given that many matches start outside and are completed under the roof) but there it is.

Conditions have to remain the same unless weather interfered. If you start indoors, you end indoors.

 

[vex]

Hypotheticals! Hypotheticals galore!

Lotsa stuff could have happened, that’s just life.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

That's Nadal fans for you

Not a Nadal fan but you do have to admit the whole roof situation is a bit dodgy

 

[Steve0904]

Not a Nadal fan but you do have to admit the whole roof situation is a bit dodgy

Dodgy as in you don't like the rule? Or dodgy as in you don't understand it? If you don't like it, fine, but it is easy enough to understand. The match started under a roof so it finishes under a roof. It's pretty simple, IMO, but for what it's worth I didn't know the rule either until this Wimbledon. I also assumed they would finish in outdoor conditions if it was nice enough.

At the AO, that was a heat index decision so again, easily understandable even if not everybody will like it.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

Dodgy as in you don't like the rule? Or dodgy as in you don't understand it? If you don't like it, fine, but it is easy enough to understand. The match started under a roof so it finishes under a roof. It's pretty simple, IMO, but for what it's worth I didn't know the rule either until this Wimbledon. I also assumed they would finish in outdoor conditions if it was nice enough.

At the AO, that was a heat index decision so again, easily understandable even if not everybody will like it.

This whole " the match should end in the same conditions it was started with" thing
doesn't make sense because if you start a match without a roof, but then it rains, you've technically finished the match under different conditions, no?

Lets assume the rule is only specific for a match that runs into the next day; lets also assume a situation where there has been heavy rain on-and-off throughout the week at Wimbledon, so let's say you have a match on Centre Court that is played without a roof before daylight begins to fade (around 7/8PM) however it starts to rain and the roof is closed and then play is stopped due to the curfew. So what happens if the rain continues throughout the next day? If they have the roof closed then the match won't end in the same conditions it has begun with, so do they wait all day for the rain to stop then?

This is why the rule is dumb, it sounded pretty arbritary.

 

[mike danny]

This whole " the match should end in the same conditions it was started with" thing
doesn't make sense because if you start a match without a roof, but then it rains, you've technically finished the match under different conditions, no?

Lets assume the rule is only specific for a match that runs into the next day; lets also assume a situation where there has been heavy rain on-and-off throughout the week at Wimbledon, so let's say you have a match on Centre Court that is played without a roof before daylight begins to fade (around 7/8PM) however it starts to rain and the roof is closed and then play is stopped due to the curfew. So what happens if the rain continues throughout the next day? If they have the roof closed then the match won't end in the same conditions it has begun with, so do they wait all day for the rain to stop then?

This is why the rule is dumb, it sounded pretty arbritary.

To me it sounds pretty simple: in the event of rain, the roof has to be closed as this was the reason why it was built, so we don't have to wait for the rain to stop. In the event of a match starting under the roof, it must continue as such in order ro maintain the same conditions. The reverse doesn't apply, because they built the roof in order to play the matches in faulty weather conditions.

 

[OhYes]

Before everyone starts attacking me, I just want to say that while most of what I'm about to say hypothetical, this is not a hate or troll thread.

Let us begin by casting our minds back to the first wimbledon semi final. It's 1 set each and Anderson is serving for the 3rd set at 5-3. At 30-40 Anderson has an easy put-away, instead of hitting into the open court, he tries (and ultimately fails) to wrong-foot Isner by hitting it straight at him. Isner then smashes a backhand down the line to break back. He goes on to win the set 7-6.

You'll probably be wondering, what has this got to do with Novak winning back-to-back slams?

Well, you see, if Anderson held his serve he would have been up 2 sets to 1 meaning it was very likely would have won the next set 6-4 (which was what actually happened); hence Anderson wins comfortably and there is no marathon 5th set.

Thus, the second semi final featuring Novak and Nadal would not have to be played under the roof; meaning it was pretty likely Nadal would have won- if he pushed Novak all the way to 11-9 in the fifth with the roof closed, what do you think he could have done with it open?

Of course, I'm not saying Nadal would definitely have won had the roof been open, but the way the two of them were playing up until that match, it would have been likely.

As you know, Novak is a confidence player; he thrives off of momentum. Had he lost the semi final, I think he would have been pretty demoralised- after all he has had a pretty rough year. I think he would have lost in Cincy to either Dimitrov or Cilic.

So let's say he does lose in Cincy; he goes into the USO with his confidence potentially shot to pieces. His first match is against Fuscovics; after winning the first set he struggles in the heat and loses the next set. In the third set he loses his serve and is in real trouble. Fuscovics holds his serve and is up 2 sets to 1. Succumbing to the heat and a lack of confidence, Djokovic eventually loses his opening round match and questions are raised as to whether we will see him win a slam at all.

Like I said, while most of this is merely hypothetical, it is pretty believable considering how poorly Novak played from June 2016-June 2018.
However, it is still kind of crazy how one easy chance missed by Kevin Anderson has potentially revived Novak's career whilst snatching away GOAThood from Nadal.

This is not hate or troll thread ???
You have been attacking Djokovic the minute he won US Open.
You can get on with your tirade, just shows how tough it is for you.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

The reverse doesn't apply, because they built the roof in order to play the matches in faulty weather conditions

Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Can't believe nadal fans are still crying over the roof 2 months after the championship

 

[OhYes]

I'm not blaming Djokovic for anything but I believe that matches that are meant to be played outside should be played outside and matches that are meant to be played indoors should be played indoors. But if we're going to argue that matches should finish in the same conditions they began then that shouldn't just apply to roof matches but to outside ones too otherwise the principle just becomes arbitrary and one-sided.

Ok so basically you are saying Novak won because roof was on ?
Tell me again what conditions favor Murray, so I can pull that out if he wins something.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

This is not hate or troll thread ???
You have been attacking Djokovic the minute he won US Open.
You can get on with your tirade, just shows how tough it is for you.

How tough what is for me?

 

[OhYes]

How tough what is for me?

Pretty tough.

 

[Enceladus]

Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.

Because the priority of a consistent environment is superior to the priority of the game outside. Both priorities are supordinate to the highest priority - avoiding program delays.
So, when the match in going on in the outdoor environment and it will start to rain, the roof retracts and the match changes the environment from outdoors to indoors, the organizers act in the interest of the highest priority - avoiding program delays.
When the roof is closed, but the weather improves and allows the duel to continue in the outdoor environment, the match is still under the roof. The organizers act in the interest of the second highest priority - maintaining a constant environment.
Similarly, as the match completes on the same court on which it was started, it will take place in the same environment unless the organizers are forced to change it.

 

[Tony48]

So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?

Is this a joke?

 

[Enceladus]

Can't believe nadal fans are still crying over the roof 2 months after the championship

Probably because they are frustrated with the success of Nadal's Nemesis in last two months. If Nadal won the match, the closed roof would not be talked about. Ultron is back in full strength, that's the reason, why Nadal fans are annoyed about.

 

[jm1980]

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.

The roof is closed so the matches can continue in spite of rain or darkness. I hope at least this part is obvious.

Now once closed, the roof cannot be reopened unless both players agree to it. The reason is simple. It takes quite some time for the roof to open or close. We don't want players demanding the roof to be reopened as soon as there is a momentary relief in the rain, and use that as a tactical timeout.

The fact that the rule doesn't account for matches spanning multiple days is a bit of a quirk; they couldn't have anticipated all the possible scenarios when they put the rule together. I think it's fine as it is.

 

[Enceladus]

Is this a joke?

You know, some people here have a problem understanding the context.

 

[Enceladus]

Nadl!

It seems that 18 is a difficult number - Fed came close quite a few times before he finally broke through. Hope full Rafa doesn't have to wait quite as long though.

Not just the 18th GS title. Barrier of 3 GS titles between Fedex and Bull has never been broken. And it is possible that this barrier will never be broken.

 

[Mainad]

Is this a joke?

I don't know, is it and, if so, why?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I do believe in aliens.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I do believe in aliens.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

The real reason is - hard work and determination! There is no evidence to suggest, that Novak would have been morally broken if he kept on failing at the Wimbledon and USO! If you listen to what he says in the interviews he always says that nor he neither Vajda expected that they would win Wimbledon at very least! And while first round defeat at US Open following would be demoralizing, i don't think that it would happen anyway...on the contrary previous loss at the Wimbledon would make Novak work harder to be prepared for USO, than if he won the W (which he did!)...i don't think there is even a hypothetical situation where he would lose to Fucsovics right of he bat! Lol

 

[Djokodal Fan]

So why doesn't the reverse situation apply: matches that start outside must be finished outside?

if you play outside it ends outside. That's the norm until weather interferes. If it rains, do you want the organizers and players to wait? This was what has been happening until wimbledon organizers decided to install a roof to avoid rain delays and loss of TV revenue.

So who is going to pay for loss of revenue. At the end of the day, money speaks and that dictates what happens.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Djor

Fedr

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Agreed. If Nadal won the 3rd set he would have won the match then Wimbledon and go into US Open with a lot more confidence and his chances of winning it would have been a lot more higher.So it is interesting to see how few points can change a lot of things.Not only that Djokovic is now on 14 Slams but also these few points affected the Year End Number one battle.Nadal needed only to convert one of his BP in the fifth set to seal off the Year End Number one position.

So in all your wisdom and knowledge, what you are saying is that if Nadal would have won...he would have won? But he didn’t, so he didn’t.

Amazing analysis from TTW once again

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Mankind managed several million years without internet, mobiles and hehk even clothes...
So what? Does Forsaking them today make sense??
Not at all...
So stop making excuses.

Yes but having a roof is not a requirement for any tournament, meaning this "rule" is not actually a rule but some arbritary decision that is made; Wimbledon managed fine for 120 odd years without a roof.

I still have not heard any actual reason why a match should be ended in the same conditions when the roof is closed to begin with, but not when it's open to begin with.

 

[Ann]

This thread is drowning in butthurt.

 

[Julian Houston]

Its normal. Pros take opportunity to shift the momentum. Fedr is pretty good in this as well.

 

[ABCD]

Conditions have to remain the same unless weather interfered. If you start indoors, you end indoors.

My take on this is that they did not envisage that a match started with closed roof would have to be interrupted. Roof was put at first place to allow play from start to finish. Therefore, in their rules they stated that match with closed roof will finish with closed roof. The idea behind this rule was to avoid situation where players ask to open the roof after rain stopped and waste ~30 mins. As this city council 11 pm rule is a new one, they did not adjust their rules to a possibility that a match with closed roof can also be interrupted and played a day later.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

I can project the same logic and say - "The real reason Federer achieved carrer slam is two words - Robin Soderling" Just saying...

 

[FHtennisman]

Not just the 18th GS title. Barrier of 3 GS titles between Fedex and Bull has never been broken. And it is possible that this barrier will never be broken.

Let's be real here - unless Novak displays peak form at RG, Rafa is pretty much a lock there next year.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The real reason is - hard work and determination! There is no evidence to suggest, that Novak would have been morally broken if he kept on failing at the Wimbledon and USO! If you listen to what he says in the interviews he always says that nor he neither Vajda expected that they would win Wimbledon at very least! And while first round defeat at US Open following would be demoralizing, i don't think that it would happen anyway...on the contrary previous loss at the Wimbledon would make Novak work harder to be prepared for USO, than if he won the W (which he did!)...i don't think there is even a hypothetical situation where he would lose to Fucsovics right of he bat! Lol

Well said Djokodalerer. And welcome to TTW.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Well said Djokodalerer. And welcome to TTW.

Thanks!

 

[smoledman]

Sureshs gave secret tennis lessons for Djokovic in May, that's why he won!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Not just the 18th GS title. Barrier of 3 GS titles between Fedex and Bull has never been broken. And it is possible that this barrier will never be broken.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 3 GS titles. Do you mean neither have won more than three in a row?

 

[jm1980]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 3 GS titles. Do you mean neither have won more than three in a row?

He means Nadal never got closer than 3 titles from Fed since Rafa got his first Slam:

Incredibly, the 3 Slam differential that was there after the 2014 French Open remains. At the time, Federer was almost 33 while Nadal had just turned 28.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Fake injuries.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

He means Nadal never got closer than 3 titles from Fed since Rafa got his first Slam:

Incredibly, the 3 Slam differential that was there after the 2014 French Open remains. At the time, Federer was almost 33 while Nadal had just turned 28.

Ah ok, thanks - I know what you mean now

 

[Deleted member 742196]

This name keeps coming up, every day. John Isner, John Isner, John Isner. I GOT BOXES FULL OF ISNER!

Isner is already the hands down favorite, sorry

Isnr

Great minds think alike.

...about great players!

Isnr

lol - this is getting out of hand hahaha

I may be overreacting but

ISNER IS THE GOAT

Get with the GOAT train:

ISNR

Jsnr

I think y’all on to something

All aboard!!!!

In JSNR we trust.

Isner-related threads urgently need sarcasm detectors.

 

[Julian Houston]

He means Nadal never got closer than 3 titles from Fed since Rafa got his first Slam:

Incredibly, the 3 Slam differential that was there after the 2014 French Open remains. At the time, Federer was almost 33 while Nadal had just turned 28.

Fred saver - Djokovic lol

Every time Rafa tries to close in he appears.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Fred saver - Djokovic lol

Every time Rafa tries to close in he appears.

How he does it is a real mystery.

Djokovic is the Jackie Chan of tennis.

 

[maratha_warrior]

How he does it is a real mystery.

Djokovic is the Jackie Chan of tennis.

Wimbledon 2018 was real mystery aswell

This time Fed went 99k miles away to court 1 allowing Joker Center court
Then djoker came out from the dead to stop nadal at Wimbledon
Poor Rafa

 

[donquijote]

The real reason

Hey that's my meme!

 

[TU87]

Breaking News, the real reason Djokovic won two slams this year....He's really good.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

Breaking News, the real reason Djokovic won two slams this year....He's really good.

Never said he wasn't

 

[mike danny]

Fred saver - Djokovic lol

Every time Rafa tries to close in he appears.

Except AO 2017. On that ocassion Fred appeared

 

[clout]

The real reason

Going from 17 to 18 slams always seems like mission impossible. Fedr had to wait almost 5 years to get from 17 to 18, Jack Nicklaus had to wait many years to get from 17 to 18, Navratilova had to wait almost 3 years to do so, Evert and Serena waited a full year, and now Rafa's road to 18 has been put on hold

 

[Plamen1234]

Going from 17 to 18 slams always seems like mission impossible. Fedr had to wait almost 5 years to get from 17 to 18, Jack Nicklaus had to wait many years to get from 17 to 18, Navratilova had to wait almost 3 years to do so, Evert and Serena waited a full year, and now Rafa's road to 18 has been put on hold

Nah he will win his 18th Slam at RG 2019.I dont see anybody stopping him there.But I have to say he was very close to getting his 18th Slam at Wimby.

 

[jm1980]

Nah he will win his 18th Slam at RG.I dont see anybody stopping him there.But I have to say he was pretty close to getting his 18th Slam at Wimby.

RG is almost certain, but I could see him doing it at the AO

 

[Bike Man]

Think Serena having a daughter has anything to do with it?