And the winner of this year's AO -- the drawmakers!

[Magnus]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Fed would have beaten Djokovic in the final in 4 sets.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters.

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray? Obviously very little on the evidence notwithstanding the fact that Murray has, in any case, always been a bad match-up for Delpo.

Originally Posted by veroniquem

If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

Again, you conveniently forget how adept Murray is at handling tricky opponents in his draws. Take 2012 USO. Murray had to struggle against Cilic who almost did to him what Wawrinka almost did to Djokovic at the AO. But he got past him just as Djokovic did Wawrinka. Both are adept at facing tough opponents and finding a way past them. I have no doubts at all that Murray would have found a way past an in-form Wawrinka just as he has in the past eg. at 2009 Wimbledon.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

No. I think the OP is onto something. Whoever draws Ferrer is going to become the odds on heavy favorite to win until Rafa returns. Regardless of the surface.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, here is one to consider; had Novak in 5 sets beaten Tsonga in the quarters then Andy in 5 again in the semis, Novak would not be guaranteed a final win over Roger if Roger in his quarter and semi had coasted through a Ferrer and/or a Simon respectively in straights.

Rafa not playing gives whoever draws Ferrer a huge advantage.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Magnus

Fed would have beaten Djokovic in the final in 4 sets.

Ha ha good one. Fed couldn't even beat Murray whom he destroyed in 2010 and Djoko is a worse proposition for him in a slam. Djoko would not have choked 2 sets away the way Murray did, 1 at the very most and even that is questionable because the way Fed was serving, Djoko would have broken him in every set.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by kanamit

Good job not actually addressing my argument. The only deluded people on this forum are those who think that Djokovic's level at this year's AO is comparable to his level in 2011.

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

No. I think the OP is onto something. Whoever draws Ferrer is going to become the odds on heavy favorite to win until Rafa returns. Regardless of the surface.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, here is one to consider; had Novak in 5 sets beaten Tsonga in the quarters then Andy in 5 again in the semis, Novak would not be guaranteed a final win over Roger if Roger in his quarter and semi had coasted through a Ferrer and/or a Simon respectively in straights.

Rafa not playing gives whoever draws Ferrer a huge advantage.

I don't think Djoko would have needed 5 against Tsonga at AO. If anything, I suspect he would have had an easier time than he did vs Wawrinka who played like a man possessed. Tsonga would have probably taken a set off him tops. He would have had a tough semi vs Murray but then his final vs Fed would have been much easier than his final vs Nadal was last year. Sorry but currently at AO, the toughest possible combination a player could have is Murray/Nadal back to back. And Djoko got that last year. And he won.
Djoko also got the toughest possible combination at USO: Fed/Nadal. And he won too. And the toughest possible combination at WTF: Fed/Murray/Delpo and he won as well. So don't give me this nonsense about draws. The only time the draw defeated Djoko was on clay, RG last year where he failed to survive Fed/Nadal but beating Nadal at RG is probably the toughest ask in tennis history. Fed tried 5 times and failed.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I don't think Djoko would have needed 5 against Tsonga at AO. If anything, I suspect he would have had an easier time than he did vs Wawrinka who played like a man possessed. Tsonga would have probably taken a set off him tops. He would have had a tough semi vs Murray but then his final vs Fed would have been much easier than his final vs Nadal was last year. Sorry but currently at AO, the toughest possible combination a player could have is Murray/Nadal back to back. And Djoko got that last year. And he won.
Djoko also got the toughest possible combination at USO: Fed/Nadal. And he won too. And the toughest possible combination at WTF: Fed/Murray/Delpo and he won as well. So don't give me this nonsense about draws. The only time the draw defeated Djoko was on clay, RG last year where he failed to survive Fed/Nadal but beating Nadal at RG is probably the toughest ask in tennis history. Fed tried 5 times and failed.

LOL seriously

I do not even know where to begin...I think I will just have to leave this one alone.

PS: The silky way you bob and weave inciting certain reactions while avoiding follow-up contact, I know you are flaming. You are also very good at it.

[Murrayfan31]

This comes from a Murray fan. Djokovic deserved the win. Having 2 days off actually caused Djokovic to be a bit rusty. He prefers playing every other day.

[jaggy]

the history books will show Djoke won it.

[Fiji]

Originally Posted by kanamit

Ok, maybe a little bit of an overstatement. But ONLY a little bit of one. Does anybody think that Djokovic's victory in the final was not significantly facilitated by Murray having to play Fed in the semis. Or that Fed's 5-set loss to Murray was due in part to more wear and tear from a far tougher draw than Murray had (especially a 5-setter against Tsonga in the previous round)?

Right now these three are so evenly matched in terms of capabilities that something as random as road to the final can significantly affect the outcome of matches between them. My guess is that until Nadal returns, the winner of the tourneys will be whichever player draws Ferrer in his half.

Nole.

He is the only one that draws Ferrer in his half at the slams.

Maybe ITF want him to break the slam record?

Nadal is a goner. Federer is old. Murray refuses to use the cvac. Ferrer can remain #4 and Nole will continue to draw him in his half.

Even if Federer drops to #3, Nole will continue getting Ferrer while #2 Murray gets #3 Federer.

[veroniquem]

The net loves Nole, the line judges love Nole, the feathery birds love Nole and now even the draw concocting Establishment loves Nole. If he doesn't make the CYGS with all that support...

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

I've copied and pasted your legendary words and will memorise and use it against my girlfriend next time she becomes irrationally hysterical.

On topic the OP Kanamit definitely has a point but is only stating the obvious.
With the current form of the top 3, being the operative line, the one who draws Ferrer will obviously have that advantage.
That's not to detract from Djokovic who still had a tough draw leading up to Ferrer and is a very deserved winner.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Djokovic would have beaten Federer in straight sets in the semis just as he did in 2008 and 2011, and would have been physically in fine shape for the final regardless. He may have been better sharpened up despite the straight sets win than his rout of Ferrer, started better, and won the final more easily. Djokovic is the Australian Open GOAT, was always going to be a big ask for Murray to beat him here, but he gave a good try.

Djokovic couldn't play Fed in the semis, they're 1 and 2. Djokovic could have played Murray in the semis. And he still would have won the tournament, but the finalwould have been better even if Djokovic did another straight sets job on Federer. Their other 2 semis were 3 close sets of good tennis, like the 2007 US Open final too.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray?

By that logic, Nadal would have offered no resistance to Kohlschreiber if they had met in Wimbledon last year.

Chardy played the match of his life against Del Potro, on the other side of things Delpo had a bad day. Nevertheless, Delpo was in superb form earlier against Mannarino and Becker. Had he survived Chardy, it's very possible he could have rediscovered that form against Murray. Not saying he would have won, but it would have been a tough match for both.

[merwy]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray?

Do you even watch tennis? That's not how it works. Murray had a ridiculously easy road to the semis. What's wrong with that? Just admit it. It doesn't make Murray any less of a tennis player, he was just lucky this tournament.

Also, I still can't get over the fact that Federer got matched up with Murray the two times that he could have met Ferrer (whom he absolutely owns). Now lets hope Nadal stays #5 for at least RG and Wimbledon so that maybe Federer could FINALLYYYYY get an easy semi for once in his damn life. The guy is a skinny 31 year old trying to compete with a bunch of muscular beasts. Cut the guy some slack.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

Epic!

10hatsofftoyouSir

[kragster]

The premise of this thread is that the overriding element determining who wins is the guy who doesn't have to play 2 of the top 4 guys back to back.
This theory that having to face 2 of the top 4 instead of 1 makes all the difference while having some merit is not supported by lots of data, with the prime reason being that a lot of factors including the players own form on the day/the potential for an upset changing the shape of the draw etc.

We can never know what WOULD have happened if Djoker had to face Murray in the semis. What we do know though is that Djoker took out 2 of the top guys in a row at AO 11, USO 11 and AO 12 and at the WTF. Federer won Wimbledon having to beat Djokovic in the semis and then Murray in the final. At USO 2012 , Fed didn't even make it to the semis to be a factor. So really we are running on a sample size of ONE to prove this point.







ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, yes you would much rather face Ferrer than Murray. But all else WILL NEVER BE EQUAL, is my point.