2015 Roland Garros Final - [1] Novak Djokovic vs. [8] Stanislas Wawrinka

Who will come out champion?


  • Total voters
    153
  • Poll closed .

edberg505

Legend
No he didn't. He capitalized on the joke draw of the century and his opponent having a nightmare draw AND schedule. (same way he capitalized on Nadal's injury at AO 2014)
I really, really want to see a slam where Wawrinka has to play Nadal, Murray and Djoko back to back and play the SF/F over 3 consecutive days and see if he wins it. Bring it on. I'm ready to bet.


LOL, so certain you were Djokovic would win. In the words of 50 cent: "I need you to hate me, so I can use you for your energy!"

I really wanted Djokovic to win, but this, this is pretty entertaining. :)
 

Keizer

Hall of Fame
Yeah right ... :-D

Stan had the toughest Draw ever ... versus a Bunch of No-Names ... before he went through grueling Encounters against an indisposed 34-Year Old ... and one Round later against an inconsistent Frenchman, who, on top of things, eliminated one of the Favorites in a 5-Set Marathon ...

One thing is certain ... if things would have been vice versa and Wawrinka had to go through Gasquet, Nadal and Murray consecutively ... to meet Djokovic in the Final .... Novak would have thrown him in a Pan, to toast him fore 3 Sets at will.

But as always in Sports ... Luck plays a huge Role. Circumstances came together perfectly fore Stan ... but nontheless, he won deservingly yesterday.
Go home. Gasquet would've been annihilated by Stan. As would Nadal. If he beat the Djoker so easily, what do you think he would've done to a Nadal moonballing everything into his strike zone? The only tough match there would've been Murray. Federer and red hot Tsonga are no jokes either. You're just a run of the mill hater who wants to put an asterisk on every title run from any player not named Novak. Sure Novak had the tougher draw, but Stan's was no cakewalk either.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I appreciate that, Chanwan. Honestly, I follow tennis much less than a lot of people on this forum. I just try not to second guess or psychoanalyze athletes I only see on TV.
Still, considering we have people like the one you just took to the cleaners and a bunch of others, who are too far up a specific players as* to assess what they're watching, a guy like you is a very welcome addition
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Ah, maybe I should have said that he wasn't getting enough points on the first serve. I think he was winning around 55-60% of first serve points, which is much lower than his usual. Of course, that may come down to Stan's somewhat surprisingly good defense, but he needed to convert better if he wanted to stick with him towards the later stages of the game.



Alright, let's look at some stats here. Djokovic went 16-6 in finals in 2011 and 2012 and went 19-5 in finals in 2013 and 2014. I'm going to say that this is a decent proxy for stamina because you're playing a lot of matches in a short time span. There seems to be no statistical difference between his performances in the two time periods, heck if anything he looks to have a better record from 2013 onwards. Let me remind you that he has played multiple best of 5 matches this year where he has bageled or breadsticked his opponents. He breadsticked and bageled Murray, easily one of the top 3 fittest guys on tour for god's sake. Murray himself mentioned that Djokovic was cleaning lines in the fifth set yesterday. I could argue that being able to go for your shots with the most important GS for your legacy on the line is an indication of mental fortitude, not mental frailty. And Djokovic always misses sitters near the net, not because he is mentally frail, but because he sucks at the net.

And please, don't try to read his mind about the net touch (I don't remember it happening myself). Isn't it possible that his mental fragility was brought about by utter frustration that Rafa wasn't going away? I can think of a thousand different reasons as to why he did that and that's no indication that he is physically or mentally weaker. Add to that the fact that he is notorious for selling it (ask Murray, that's twice in a row that he's let his concentration slip when Djokovic starts off on one of his pantomimes). Besides, almost every player in recent history ATP who played Rafa was probably frustrated at some point given how Rafa plays and fights. That doesn't mean all of them are mentally weak, does it?

I never said that you believed Djoker was a lock to win this one. However I do believe that he was not a lock because of how he matches up against a player like Wawrinka and not because he was physically/mentally compromised by his RG schedule/age/whatever other excuse you can think of.
You have won me. With very few posts.. Not easy to find sensible people here. Stay here.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
I thought Novak had a pretty easy draw til the quarterfinals. I never really thought the draw has anything to do with if you are truly deserving champion or not. Is Gastin Gaudio deserving champion ? Yet he is a French open champion too. and Stan is 100 % more real deal than him....
The average rank of Novak's first 4 opponents is 60 or so. That's as tough as it can get. In fact for top players the first four rounds doesnt matter. Unless on grass.

But I get your point.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
AO 2006 and FO 2010 are pretty even IMO.

You might find this thread interesting...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=534658
On paper, FO 2010 is consistently tougher in my different average draw ranking analysis. But I agree it's only on paper. In reality they both were easy Slams to win. Nothing to separate much.

Oh man, that thread. Mighty good it should be. I will see that! Thanks a lot! I would have missed.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
She's in ruins over this loss :lol: I recovered after a few minutes - it's disappointing at first, but it's always important to appreciate when the opponent (Stanimal) played amazing tennis, I really don't know if a more favourable draw/scheduling would have made a difference to be honest.
Yes. Didnt know you were a Novak here.. :)
 

Bertie B

Professional
The Djoker is reminding me of Agassi at the USO. Except Agassi has a CGS.

Sampras was Andre's nemesis @ USO. After Pete's retirement in 2002 it seemed the way was clear for Andre to win the following year - then BAM a surprise defeat. Next two years be ran into Federer.

Silly Djoker. You can't capitalize on opponent's decline then claim greatness. Greatness is beating the best at their best.
 

PinShot

Rookie
Go home. Gasquet would've been annihilated by Stan. As would Nadal. If he beat the Djoker so easily, what do you think he would've done to a Nadal moonballing everything into his strike zone? The only tough match there would've been Murray. Federer and Tsonga are no jokes either. You're just a hater who wants to put an asterisk on every title run from any player not named Novak.
How easy did he beat him? He lost the first Set after facing multiple BP early on. After that almost everyone, including me, predicted a pacy 3-Setter before Novak, one of the most fierce Competitors out there and certainly one of the most physically prepared ones, got flat somwhere in the middle of the second set.

His Serve sucked heavy (more than it usually does), with both FH/BH he could not find constant length in his Strokes, when he dictated a Rally. He was constantly either too short ore too long, yet Wawrinka, with his heavy and lengthy Strokes, needed 4 Sets to beat him, facing 4 BPs in the final Game alone with Novak, heavily breathing already, sending one of his BHs once more over the Line at last BP.

A BO5 Encounter versus Nadal is more a mental Mountain to climb than a technical one. To beat him one has to be prepared to go through Pain in a probable 4 ore 5 Setter ... but even if its only 3 Sets ... its always a mental Battle and physically draining. If you think Stan would have pushed him around just like that, you must have been sleeping last 9 Years .. because we all know how well Federers Style copes with Nadal on Clay, especially at RG... and Wawrinka plays similar to Federer.

And after that? ... Murray ... on of the best four Tennis Players in the World, equally strong and physically as prepared as Rafa and Novak ...

I might be bitter that Novak lost. But I am certainly not a Hater. Maybe in your Opinion eveyones a Hater, who does not share your Opinion. I dont know. I do not even care ... I have nothing against Stan, he's one hell of a great Guy and won deservingly yesterday .... but Things would have looked very different, had Stan pulled Novaks Draw and vice versa.

Things simply came together perfectly fore Stan. Everything fit and everything clicked favourably. And yesterday he took his Chance and played great. Certainly the Match of his Life. But i doubt he'll ever pull such a Performance again.
 

Keizer

Hall of Fame
Let me go through your post flaw by flaw.

How easy did he beat him? He lost the first Set after facing multiple BP early on. After that almost everyone, including me, predicted a pacy 3-Setter before Novak, one of the most fierce Competitors out there and certainly one of the most physically prepared ones, got flat somwhere in the middle of the second set.
Oho, so Wawrinka had nothing to do with Novak getting flat? Novak was just cruising along until he hit some sort of mental iceberg that overwhelmed him and caused him to self destruct? Again, go home. Wawrinka made him go flat.

His Serve sucked heavy (more than it usually does), with both FH/BH he could not find constant length in his Strokes, when he dictated a Rally. He was constantly either too short ore too long, yet Wawrinka, with his heavy and lengthy Strokes, needed 4 Sets to beat him, facing 4 BPs in the final Game alone with Novak, heavily breathing already, sending one of his BHs once more over the Line at last BP.
I agree about the serve, it wasn't up to par. But everyone has days when they're serving badly. And as the number 1 player in the world by some distance, I would have expected him to right the ship. And why do you think he couldn't find depth in his strokes? I'll tell you - it was because he was standing 2 meters behind the baseline trying to retrieve the bombs that were flying at him from the other side of the net. And come on, are we saying the match wasn't relatively easy because Wawrinka faced break points? Novak is maybe the best returner ever - I expect him to force break points against any opponent. The fact that you're trying to justify why Novak lost instead of accepting that he was simply outplayed makes you a hater to me. Add to that the fact that you admit you're bitter that Novak lost.

A BO5 Encounter versus Nadal is more a mental Mountain to climb than a technical one. To beat him one has to be prepared to go through Pain in a probable 4 ore 5 Setter ... but even if its only 3 Sets ... its always a mental Battle and physically draining. If you think Stan would have pushed him around just like that, you must have been sleeping last 9 Years .. because we all know how well Federers Style copes with Nadal on Clay, especially at RG... and Wawrinka plays similar to Federer.
Wawrinka is completely different from Federer. Nadal's goto shot, the topspin FH to Fed's BH would've been completely neutralized and spanked out of the park by a redlining Wawrinka. Add to that the fact that he was crushing every moonball he received in this tournament, be it from Federer (who said he tried to moonball Stan in his presser), Tsonga (who was moonballing the heck out of the ball in the third set) and Djokovic. Wawrinka would've beaten Nadal this tournament playing like he did against Federer and Djokovic - no question about it. And mentally draining? Are you saying that a QF against weak Nadal is more mentally draining than a Final against 40-2 Djoker? Especially two weeks after you beat that same Nadal on clay? Get outta here.


I might be bitter that Novak lost. But I am certainly not a Hater. Maybe in your Opinion eveyones a Hater, who does not share your Opinion. I dont know. I do not even care ... I have nothing against Stan, he's one hell of a great Guy and won deservingly yesterday .... but Things would have looked very different, had Stan pulled Novaks Draw and vice versa.

Things simply came together perfectly fore Stan. Everything fit and everything clicked favourably. And yesterday he took his Chance and played great. Certainly the Match of his Life. But i doubt he'll ever pull such a Performance again.
Ok sure. He faced three players he had losing records against and beat them all. Love how things come together only in retrospect. And let's not live in what-ifs. What if Federer did not have a shanking backhand and had Wawa's backhand? He could've won 4-5 FOs. This was Stan's complete victory, no excuses, no buts.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
The Djoker is reminding me of Agassi at the USO. Except Agassi has a CGS.

Sampras was Andre's nemesis @ USO. After Pete's retirement in 2002 it seemed the way was clear for Andre to win the following year - then BAM a surprise defeat. Next two years be ran into Federer.

Silly Djoker. You can't capitalize on opponent's decline then claim greatness. Greatness is beating the best at their best.
While I can agree with you, I worry your comment has a tone of belittling Djoker, a special player in the history of the sport. Sure Djoker couldnt beat best Nadal at RG, but the same can be said of Nadal against Djoker at AO, Djoker's pet Slam. As for Federer, their peaks didnt simply coincide.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
While I can agree with you, I worry your comment has a tone of belittling Djoker, a special player in the history of the sport. Sure Djoker couldnt beat best Nadal at RG, but the same can be said of Nadal against Djoker at AO, Djoker's pet Slam. As for Federer, their peaks didnt simply coincide.
Nadal did better and beat prime Federer at the 2009 AO.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Yep, been following his career since early 2007, discovered this forum in 2012 and finally started posting 1 year ago :) I try and stay as objective as I can, but sometimes cannot resist the urge to troll
1. What a fantastic fantastic talent he was. I was certain this guy is here to stay. Very unfortunately we dont see that level of tennis - even his 2007 level of tennis - from youngsters much older than 20 today.

I always believed tennis, and most sports, is all about eras. Some eras are just weaker. Around 2008 Roger had one heck of a competition from the likes of Nole, Rafa, Andy, Juan Martin around. Can we say the same about the best of Nishikori-Dimitrov-Raonic today? They are not only older than what Nole has been in 2007, but even has an evolutionary advantage of 7-8 years.

To just subjectively talk of player strength from watching I would say the order is roughly, Fed > Nadal > Djoker > Safin > Nalbandian > Murray > Del Potro > Wawrinka > Hewitt > the rest, which includes Davydenko/Ferrer/Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga/Nishikori/Roddick/Dimitrov. I wouldn't include Raonic in that list yet, who is one of the three best in the 22-26 years age bracket.

The only time I got a feeling of next Djoker is from Nishikori. He was fantastic against Nadal in Madrid and against Djoker in UO last year. He is as good when his game is on, but he hardly sustained it.

I am not sure if it is case of Fedalovic being extra special and Nishi-Dimi-Raoni is what one should expect in an era or if it is a case of current generation being extra weak.

Sorry to say all this. Your Djoker 2007 reminded me a lot :)

2. Yeah, I sometimes see you trolling, but also a lot of good posts ;)
 
Last edited:

PinShot

Rookie
Oho, so Wawrinka had nothing to do with Novak getting flat? Wawrinka made him go flat.
Wawrinka was not able to flat Djokovic within the first Set, because he laid to much work into producing Unforced Errors and trying to somewhat regroup. He looked like a Man trying to realize what is going on in the first Place.

I agree about the serve, it wasn't up to par. But everyone has days when they're serving badly. And as the number 1 player in the world by some distance, I would have expected him to right the ship. And why do you think he couldn't find depth in his strokes?
Because he lost concentration due to to physical exhaustion as a Result of two equally physical and mentally draining Matches on 3 of 4 consecutive Matchdays against two of the best Players on Clay. And that's exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. And that's what my initial Point was, when I replied to Nostradamus .. who tried to sell that Novak had an easy Draw (compared to Stan).

Novak is maybe the best returner ever - I expect him to force break points against any opponent.
Really? You expect him? Well, if you expect him .. that means something. He better be delivering.

Nothing can be expected from him, if his concentration is not on par. When Soreness/Tiredness sets in your Concentration drops as well. You can have all the Assets in the World, but if your Body does not have the Energy to execute .. everything goes down the Drain.

The fact that you're trying to justify why Novak lost instead of accepting that he was simply outplayed makes you a hater to me.
Except he was not just "simply outplayed". I dont care, about who makes what to you. Best thing for you would be to come back as soon as your have learned to have a Discussion, without throwing out Denominations like an underaged Schoolkid.

Are you saying that a QF against weak Nadal is more mentally draining than a Final against 40-2 Djoker? Especially two weeks after you beat that same Nadal on clay?
Probably not. I don't know. But you are asking the wrong Questions anyway. Because we didn't see that full-blown Novak on Sunday. I mean I expected to see a fully recovered and well prepared Novak, but I learned (just like many others) that after 3 of 4 Days of consecutive Matches, without sufficent Rest before the Final, you cannot even expect Djokovic to show up in full Force.

Sure Wawrinkas Shots were too much to Handle after like ... 45 Minutes of play. But stating that Novaks Draw was easy, compare to Wawrinka, and that the Final would have looked the same, had Stan went through Novaks Opponents ... is not even worth a yawn.




Ok sure. He faced three players he had losing records against and beat them all. Love how things come together only in retrospect. And let's not live in what-ifs. What if Federer did not have a shanking backhand and had Wawa's backhand? He could've won 4-5 FOs. This was Stan's complete victory, no excuses, no buts.[/QUOTE]
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
1. What a fantastic fantastic talent he was. I was certain this guy is here to stay. Very unfortunately we dont see that level of tennis - even his 2007 level of tennis - from youngsters much older than 20 today.

I always believed tennis, and most sports, is all about eras. Some eras are just weaker. Around 2008 Roger had one heck of a competition from the likes of Nole, Rafa, Andy, Juan Martin around. Can we say the same about the best of Nishikori-Dimitrov-Raonic today? They are not only older than what Nole has been in 2007, but even has an evolutionary advantage of 7-8 years.

To just subjectively talk of player strength from watching I would say the order is roughly, Fed > Nadal > Djoker > Safin > Nalbandian > Murray > Del Potro > Wawrinka > Hewitt > the rest, which includes Davydenko/Ferrer/Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga/Nishikori/Roddick/Dimitrov. I wouldn't include Raonic in that list yet, who is one of the three best in the 22-26 years age bracket.

The only time I got a feeling of next Djoker is from Nishikori. He was fantastic against Nadal in Madrid and against Djoker in UO last year. He is as good when his game is on, but he hardly sustained it.

I am not sure if it is case of Fedalovic being extra special and Nishi-Dimi-Raoni is what one should expect in an era or if it is a case of current generation being extra weak.

Sorry to say all this. Your Djoker 2007 reminded me a lot :)

2. Yeah, I sometimes see you trolling, but also a lot of good posts ;)
Yeah, lot of good times to enjoy in the last decade - after Sampras was basically done in 2000, I lost interest in tennis for a while, then watching Federer (and later Nadal) revived my interest. So in a way, it's thanks to him/them that I noticed Djoko in the first place. I also began supporting Murray in 2006, when I saw him play live at Wimbledon and knew he could be the next big thing here in Britain.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Yeah, lot of good times to enjoy in the last decade - after Sampras was basically done in 2000, I lost interest in tennis for a while, then watching Federer (and later Nadal) revived my interest. So in a way, it's thanks to him/them that I noticed Djoko in the first place. I also began supporting Murray in 2006, when I saw him play live at Wimbledon and knew he could be the next big thing here in Britain.
Cool.,. :)
 

Keizer

Hall of Fame
Because he lost concentration due to to physical exhaustion as a Result of two equally physical and mentally draining Matches on 3 of 4 consecutive Matchdays against two of the best Players on Clay. And that's exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. And that's what my initial Point was, when I replied to Nostradamus .. who tried to sell that Novak had an easy Draw (compared to Stan).
Love the excuses. Did Djokovic say in his pressers that he felt tired and unable to play to his full potential? He said that he "lost a bit of the explosiveness in his legs". That's far from being exhausted/ mentally and physically unable to compete. I can't believe that you think his match against Nadal was mentally draining. He breadsticked him in the final set. I'd think that would be mentally uplifting, to see your biggest rival on the surface unable to touch you. In any case, this was completely different from Wimbledon 2013, where it was clear he was deflated by Delpo. Give me one valid piece of evidence (by that I mean a statement from him/his coaching staff) that he was mentally and physically compromised in the final. I don't want to engage in trying to second guess how the guy himself was feeling because that's basically an exercise in BSing (unless you're his wife or Boris).


Really? You expect him? Well, if you expect him .. that means something. He better be delivering.

Nothing can be expected from him, if his concentration is not on par. When Soreness/Tiredness sets in your Concentration drops as well. You can have all the Assets in the World, but if your Body does not have the Energy to execute .. everything goes down the Drain.
He did deliver. He had several opportunities to break but did not close enough of them. And again, who are you to tell me how Djokovic was feeling during the match? Do you share a consciousness with him? How can you be sure his concentration was slipping and his body did not have the energy to execute? Is it so improbable that he couldn't execute because he couldn't play to his strengths (standing at baseline and dictating play) on account of Wawrinka pushing him back way behind the baseline?


Except he was not just "simply outplayed". I dont care, about who makes what to you. Best thing for you would be to come back as soon as your have learned to have a Discussion, without throwing out Denominations like an underaged Schoolkid.
You're the schoolkid here, bud. Who gave you the license to interpret every single one of the Djoker's thoughts and innermost feelings and spell them out to us like they were the gospel? You haven't given me one stat to prove that Djokovic choked away this match instead of having it wrested from him. And I would think that 60 winners out of 137 won points for Wawrinka is pretty damning evidence of the Djoker being outplayed off the ground. Even if you're right and he was physically, mentally, psychologically and whatever else compromised, he was still outplayed.


Probably not. I don't know. But you are asking the wrong Questions anyway. Because we didn't see that full-blown Novak on Sunday. I mean I expected to see a fully recovered and well prepared Novak, but I learned (just like many others) that after 3 of 4 Days of consecutive Matches, without sufficent Rest before the Final, you cannot even expect Djokovic to show up in full Force.
You're at it again. How in god's name do you know he wasn't well prepared? Are there metrics to measure how fit a player is before every match? Did you make Djokovic step on a treadmill before the game to test his endurance?. The only way you can say someone was not fit is when the player himself raises the issue or when the player comes into a game with a preexisting injury.

Sure Wawrinkas Shots were too much to Handle after like ... 45 Minutes of play. But stating that Novaks Draw was easy, compare to Wawrinka, and that the Final would have looked the same, had Stan went through Novaks Opponents ... is not even worth a yawn.
Nobody knows what could happen if the reverse was true. Did anybody expect Tsonga to beat Berdych and Nishikori? Did anybody expect Murray to take Djokovic to a 5th after the first two sets? Did anybody expect Stan to beat the Djoker in 4? You can never make statements about how a hypothetical draw would've played out because that's what it is - a hypothetical draw. And wow, if Wawrinka's shots took just 45 minutes to overwhelm Djokovic when he was unhealthy are you saying that healthy Djokovic could've withstood the onslaught easily for 3-4 hours? Go watch some of the old AO matches where both of them were "fit" by your definition. Wawrinka is just a bad matchup for Djokovic because on any given day, he can hit through him and cause him huge problems.
 
I tell ya, I wanted Djokovic to win this so badly but at the same time you can't help but marvel at that level of tennis from Wawrinka. It's something to behold.

Congrats to Stan on his 2nd Grand Slam title! Like Darren Cahill said, 2 Slams in this era of tennis is a great achievement.
 

Feather

Legend
Ok sure. He faced three players he had losing records against and beat them all. Love how things come together only in retrospect. And let's not live in what-ifs. What if Federer did not have a shanking backhand and had Wawa's backhand? He could've won 4-5 FOs. This was Stan's complete victory, no excuses, no buts.
Probably Roger Federer wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons or US Opens?

Loved reading your posts. Please stay here. You are one of the guys whose posts are very informative and nice
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal did better and beat prime Federer at the 2009 AO.
Nadal did exactly the opposite of things. He beat a prime Fed at AO, which is not his best HC slam, USO is. And also he beat Djokovic at the USO, which isn't his best slam, AO is.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Nadal did exactly the opposite of things. He beat a prime Fed at AO, which is not his best HC slam, USO is. And also he beat Djokovic at the USO, which isn't his best slam, AO is.
But UO is not Federer's best Slam? :shock: :twisted: :D

Prime for prime, individual Slam wise:

1. Nadal beat Federer at his pet Slam.
2. Federer didn't manage any.
3. Djoker didnt manage any.

Prime for prime, surface wise:

1. Nadal beat Federer on grass and Djoker on hard.
2. Federer beat Djoker on hard [arguable, as some people might argue Djoker's prime is 2011+ but I dont buy it]
3. Djoker didn't manage any.

Nadal is king of h2hs. All comes down to his relative superiority on clay compared to other greats on other surfaces.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Alright, let's look at some stats here. Djokovic went 16-6 in finals in 2011 and 2012 and went 19-5 in finals in 2013 and 2014. I'm going to say that this is a decent proxy for stamina because you're playing a lot of matches in a short time span. There seems to be no statistical difference between his performances in the two time periods, heck if anything he looks to have a better record from 2013 onwards.
If we are going to look at stats for Djoker, the benchmark for comparison should be 2011 - Miami 2012 (or just 2011 to keep it simple). He was not the same player from the clay season of 2012, so clubbing 2011 and all of 2012 is obviously going to dilute the numbers. I don't think he ever did better than 2011.

And please, don't try to read his mind about the net touch (I don't remember it happening myself). Isn't it possible that his mental fragility was brought about by utter frustration that Rafa wasn't going away?
The AO 2012 final was equally brutal. As brutal as the semi that year where Murray was just not going away. I believe his stamina saw him through during those times and he closed out those matches.

Now you don't know what really happens in his head any better than I do, so all we have are our opinions on what we think we saw. I was arguing against people who said that stamina is never a problem for Djokovic. My point is that it has been for the last couple of years. You can't think clearly or focus when you are exhausted, and tend to make sloppy errors of the net touch kind. You are free to call it mental frailty but you haven't said what suddenly made him so mentally frail when he'd routinely come back from being match point down and battle it out in back to back five setters going 4,5,6 hours.

Is there an example post AO 2012 where he got into a similar 4-5 hour battle with a top player in the later stages of a slam without showing any after effects and even going on to win the tournament ?

I never said that you believed Djoker was a lock to win this one. However I do believe that he was not a lock because of how he matches up against a player like Wawrinka and not because he was physically/mentally compromised by his RG schedule/age/whatever other excuse you can think of.
I have lost track of what we are really arguing about. I questioned the premise that "Djoker had this in the bag" and "Stan was expected to fold".

I wasn't even trying to make excuses for Djoker, my point was that he no longer had that absolutely unbeatable aura, stamina and clutchness of 2011 for anyone to say that he had this final in the bag.

But more than that, I took an exception with Stan's chances or mental strength being downplayed, for someone who beat Nadal in his first slam final. The only reason someone would say that is if they thought he won that AO because, well, his opponent was injured.
 
Last edited:

Keizer

Hall of Fame
If we are going to look at stats for Djoker, the benchmark for comparison should be 2011 - Miami 2012 (or just 2011 to keep it simple). He was not the same player from the clay season of 2012, so clubbing 2011 and all of 2012 is obviously going to dilute the numbers. I don't think he ever did better than 2011.
I was arguing against people who said that stamina is never a problem for Djokovic.
Of course, you look at his statistically best season and you will find numbers that can't be replicated anywhere else in his career. My point is that stamina only becomes an issue when it is the reason that a player loses matches. Novak still wins overwhelmingly many matches because of his stamina as all his 5th set victims over the past few years will attest to. How can you say that a player who has breadsticked and bageled Slam Stan and Murray in consecutive matches this year suffers from a stamina issue? I'm going to say that he hasn't been able to replicate his 2011 season not because of him losing stamina, but because it was just a statistical outlier.

Is there an example post AO 2012 where he got into a similar 4-5 hour battle with a top player in the later stages of a slam without showing any after effects and even going on to win the tournament ?
Well he took 3.5 hours to beat Wawa at the AO this year and then beat Murray. At Wimbledon 2014 he took 3+ hours to beat Cilic in the QF, 3 hours against Dimitrov in the SF and then beat Fed in 5 sets.


I wasn't even trying to make excuses for Djoker, my point was that he no longer had that absolutely unbeatable aura, stamina and clutchness of 2011 for anyone to say that he had this final in the bag.
I agree that he doesn't have the aura of GS clutchness since 2011. But he had an unbeatable aura coming into this tournament. He beat every single one of his rivals multiple times during the season and only lost the one match to a Fed who was cleaning lines over two sets. How was there any reason to doubt he would win this one except for the wild card that is Wawrinka? He's been absolutely flawless since the end of the USO last year.
 

Vrad

Professional
I don't understand why so many are trying to explain away the obvious that their eyes saw?

Stan caught fire in the 2nd week. He was defending well, hitting the ball really hard and painting lines. It's unlikely anyone in tennis today was beating him on that day.

Novak had the misfortune to be facing an absolutely goating Stan. There's little his opponents can do when he is in that sort of form.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I don't understand why so many are trying to explain away the obvious that their eyes saw?

Stan caught fire in the 2nd week. He was defending well, hitting the ball really hard and painting lines. It's unlikely anyone in tennis today was beating him on that day.

Novak had the misfortune to be facing an absolutely goating Stan. There's little his opponents can do when he is in that sort of form.
+1, I've been saying this in a lot of threads these past few days.
 
Last edited:

sortof

Rookie
I don't understand why so many are trying to explain away the obvious that their eyes saw?

Stan caught fire in the 2nd week. He was defending well, hitting the ball really hard and painting lines. It's unlikely anyone in tennis today was beating him on that day.

Novak had the misfortune to be facing an absolutely goating Stan. There's little his opponents can do when he is in that sort of form.
Sometimes tennis really is as simple as that.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
Loved reading your posts. Please stay here. You are one of the guys whose posts are very informative and nice
+1. Keizer surely knows his tennis! :)

I don't understand why so many are trying to explain away the obvious that their eyes saw?

Stan caught fire in the 2nd week. He was defending well, hitting the ball really hard and painting lines. It's unlikely anyone in tennis today was beating him on that day.

Novak had the misfortune to be facing an absolutely goating Stan. There's little his opponents can do when he is in that sort of form.
+1, I've been saying this in a lot of threads these past few days.
I've said it only once, some ten pages ago or so. Apparently it needs a lot of reapeating for some strange reason. ;)
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Djokovics massive improving in his serving and net play made him the most complete player of all time. He is now even better than 2011. Best player of all time in terms of play.
Sorry Cortana, but it seems Stanimal is slightly better than the best player of all time in terms of play.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Cortana, you said Djokovic is "Best player of all time in terms of play", and yet......he's had to wait for Federer and Nadal to go about 7 years past their physical primes in order to win most of his slams :shock: and he still needed a 5th set to beat Federer at last year's Wimbledon :shock: and still loses to Nadal at the US Open :shock:
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Cortana, you said Djokovic is "Best player of all time in terms of play", and yet......he's had to wait for Federer and Nadal to go about 7 years past their physical primes in order to win most of his slams :shock: and he still needed a 5th set to beat Federer at last year's Wimbledon :shock: and still loses to Nadal at the US Open :shock:
The level of your bullcrap is in its absolute prime.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
^ Have you ever seen footage of 2008 Nadal?
He was so fast he made 2010 Nadal look slow.
I think that 2009 Australian Open damaged Nadal more than anything.
I've seen every year of Nadal, and its funny when you see Djokovic losing to Nadal at 2013 US Open and 2014 French Open.
Its almost as funny as watching Djokovic still struggle with Federer....
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
^ Have you ever seen footage of 2008 Nadal?
He was so fast he made 2010 Nadal look slow.
I think that 2009 Australian Open damaged Nadal more than anything.
I've seen every year of Nadal, and its funny when you see Djokovic losing to Nadal at 2013 US Open and 2014 French Open.
Its almost as funny as watching Djokovic still struggle with Federer....
Hi Chico++, movement is not the single factor in tennis. If that was so, Rafa would have won/shown better performance at US Opens then. No his game hasnt peaked for HC tennis then. Funny, Nadal's one of the two best US Open performances happened 2 years back, and here is Chico++ talking about some 7 years past his prime crap. Basic math, no?
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
^ I said 7 years past his physical prime.
Yes you said that, which makes it even worse. So Stan is playing his best tennis since 2013, past his physical prime. Same can be said of Serena. Simply it doesnt matter. When you're making fun of Djoker not being able to beat Nadal in 2013 US Open, citing Nadal being past his physical prime [an absurd comment which is. A slight decline is not past prime, but I give it to you for argument sake], how does it even matter if Nadal is simply playing better than what he was in his physical prime?

When you mock a person for not being able to beat a Nadal past his physical prime, it implies overall Nadal was worse. If he wasnt, which he wasn't, then that's an absurd comment. Which is what I was trying to explain. I might have missed to add a word "physical" there and you failed to get the larger point. I had to explain like this? Gone nuts?

Your original illogical comment:

Cortana, you said Djokovic is "Best player of all time in terms of play", and yet......he's had to wait for Federer and Nadal to go about 7 years past their physical primes in order to win most of his slams :shock: and he still needed a 5th set to beat Federer at last year's Wimbledon :shock: and still loses to Nadal at the US Open :shock:
As always.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
I understand. Just trying. Didnt lose hope :) I like the guy but. Entertainer :twisted:
Have to agree on that, :lol: -

The only saddening part about it may well be that every time he posts one of his exorbitant claims, the opposite tends to be the actual outcome in reality. :(
 
Top