2019 ATP Madrid SF: Djokovic [1] vs Thiem [5]

Winner


  • Total voters
    67
Of course he is. Clay does not = RG. Clay = RG, MC, Rome and 3rd clay master. There is a reason why one has won all 4 (and 3 out of the 4 multiple times) and the other has won only 2 out of the 4 (and only 1 out of the 4 multiple times). There is also a reason why Djoko is top 10 on clay in winning % (all time) and Fed is not :p
Might as well be.
The other has had easier conditions and luck in the MM tournaments. Fed's best master (Hamburg) got demolished, Fed had to play in bo5 finals and Novak didn't, Fed didn't have the same luck as Novak did (Rome 08) , Fed plays by the rules and etc.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
Djokovic will beat Nadal pretty handily tomorrow. Nadal doesn't believe he can beat him anymore, even on clay. Djokovic was in second gear today and brushed aside Thiem fairly easily. Djoker always gets up for Rafa or Fed and ALWAYS brings his A-game against them both since 2011 (barring 2017 lackluster form).
I guess you could say Rome 2018 is the exception, but you are 100 percent correct. Novak is back in Godmode, and this is the worst news of Rafa's year.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Might as well be.
The other has had easier conditions and luck in the MM tournaments. Fed's best master (Hamburg) got demolished, Fed had to play in bo5 finals and Novak didn't, Fed didn't have the same luck as Novak did (Rome 08) , Fed plays by the rules and etc.
Resorting to excuses is an admission of defeat. Djoko has the record, Fed doesn't. The excuses will go, the achievements will stay.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I know you dislike Fed but that's really pushing it. Apart from a record over Nadal (a lot of which is in his later years) theres not much that separates Djokovic and fed on clay
Rome and MC is not much? That's half the main events on clay haha. (Not to mention the difference in winning % overall, never mind record against Nadal).
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Might as well be.
The other has had easier conditions and luck in the MM tournaments. Fed's best master (Hamburg) got demolished, Fed had to play in bo5 finals and Novak didn't, Fed didn't have the same luck as Novak did (Rome 08) , Fed plays by the rules and etc.
Federer played 2008 Rome too didn't he? So he had the same luck right? He also played the '03 Rome final and lost to someone not named Nadal. Luck?
 
Federer played 2008 Rome too didn't he? So he had the same luck right? He also played the '03 Rome final and lost to someone not named Nadal. Luck?
Let's just say it was an equivalent to 2013 Madrid/Rome for Novak. But Luckovic gets two retirements in a row. :rolleyes: Mantilla is a great player.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's just say it was an equivalent to 2013 Madrid/Rome for Novak. But Luckovic gets two retirements in a row. :rolleyes: Mantilla is a great player.
Novak didn't get any retirements in 2013 Rome and he won MC anyway, beating Nadal in the final. He also lost early in Madrid. Luckovic? Lol. Djokovic has more top 5 and top 10 wins on clay although he has played about 4 years less on the surface. His success has nothing to do with luck.
 
Novak didn't get any retirements in 2013 Rome and he won MC anyway, beating Nadal in the final. He also lost early in Madrid. Luckovic? Lol. Djokovic has more top 5 and top 10 wins on clay although he has played about 4 years less on the surface. His success has nothing to do with luck.
No, I equaled him losing to lower ranked like Fed did in Rome 08.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Rome and MC is not much? That's half the main events on clay haha. (Not to mention the difference in winning % overall, never mind record against Nadal).
Frderer never won those because he faced a prime Nadal on clay. Djokovic is better vs Nadal on clay than fed and tbis is the main reason he has won more on clay, he matches up better with nadal but his h2h with fed is even and he is 0-3 vs fed at MC I thi k he even lost to him as recent as 2015?

His actual level on clay isnt that different to Federer

What is the winning percentage though out of interest?
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
Honestly, I can answer this question for you after the final with Nadal. Nadal is still the top dog. Djokovic was always one of the top three, along with Nadal and Thiem, but tomorrow will help bring a little more clarity to answering your question.
Well?
 

arvind13

Professional
For example, in the 1990s, Ferrer would have the chance to win 2-3 FOs and Berdych would have a good chance of AO.
berdych would get destroyed by the depth of talent in the 90s. today's depth of talent is nothing compared to 90s, other than big 3 everybody else sucks. everyone plays the same ballbashing game with no tennis IQ or variety, or surface specialization. berdych would get destroyed by courier, agassi, becker, ivanisevic, sampras, todd martin, philippoussis, stich, krajicek . ferrer would also get destroyed on clay, because the 90s were the era of the surface specialist, ppl who played much better than ferrer on clay.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Btw., do you think that today Djokovic has played to the best of his abilities? :)
Nadal's chances have taken a big hit today, I don't think he is winning Rome now either, considering the manner in which he lost today, and that his Rome draw is a lot harder than the one he had in Madrid. I think Djokovic's chances have gone up by virtue of beating Thiem but also by Nadal losing today and looking more susceptible to a loss by other players. However, Djokovic should win tomorrow if he really wants to get into pole position before the final leg to French Open glory. A loss to Tsitsipas is not going to be good for him, considering how much his opponent has played and the late finish today.

I also don't think Djokovic is in full Earth's Mightiest Warrior mode yet, there were flashes of it against Thiem, but he still has a few levels he can go up. He did finish stronger than when he started the match. At his best form, he doesn't have back to back slow starts in both sets. He is normally more clinical and less error prone.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Frderer never won those because he faced a prime Nadal on clay. Djokovic is better vs Nadal on clay than fed and tbis is the main reason he has won more on clay, he matches up better with nadal but his h2h with fed is even and he is 0-3 vs fed at MC I thi k he even lost to him as recent as 2015?

His actual level on clay isnt that different to Federer

What is the winning percentage though out of interest?
Djoko is #6 with 79%. Fed is #15 with 75%. Not close. (All time stats)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Only player to hold the 4 at once on clay, grass and hard and only player to have the whole master set on top of WTF and the 4 slams.
doesn't make djokovic = best or GOAT a fact, so called 'teacher'....:-D:-D
 

Enceladus

Legend
berdych would get destroyed by the depth of talent in the 90s. today's depth of talent is nothing compared to 90s, other than big 3 everybody else sucks. everyone plays the same ballbashing game with no tennis IQ or variety, or surface specialization. berdych would get destroyed by courier, agassi, becker, ivanisevic, sampras, todd martin, philippoussis, stich, krajicek . ferrer would also get destroyed on clay, because the 90s were the era of the surface specialist, ppl who played much better than ferrer on clay.
I'm not writing, that be Ferrer and Berdych won 5+ GS titles, but no group of tennis players in history have covered GS tournaments as effectively as Big 3.
When AO 1998 could win Korda, AO 2002 Johannson or Wimbledon 1991 Stich, Berdych could win those tournaments instead of mentioned players if he was born earlier. Berdych has more SF participations at GS tournaments than all the tennis players mentioned. None of these tennis players had such a heavy draw as Berdych at Wimbledon 2010, where he met complete Fedalovic (Stich otherwise defeated Becker and Edberg in Wimbledon 1991, but Berdych faced against three ATG players).
As far as Ferrer is concerned, FO 1993-94 could win instead of Bruguera. Or would have a chance at FO 1998, which Moya won. If we swapped the positions of Ferrer and Bruguera/Moya in tennis history, Bruguera/Moya be wouldn't won any FO due to Nadal.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nope, wrong again ;)
Fed may be the best in slams but Djoko is the best overall. It doesn't hurt either that Djoko is the one who scored best season ever, not Fed :p
fed's 2006 > djoko 15 (higher win%, more # of titles, 3 of 5 losses were to prime Nadal on clay)
oh and laver's 69 > djoko 15 as well (in terms of greatness)

fed isn't just the best in slams, he's also the best at the YECs.
djoko having the all the masters/close to highest # of masters making him the best overall is just :D :D
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'm not writing, that be Ferrer and Berdych won 5+ GS titles, but no group of tennis players in history have covered GS tournaments as effectively as Big 3.
When AO 1998 could win Korda, AO 2002 Johannson or Wimbledon 1991 Stich, Berdych could win those tournaments instead of mentioned players if he was born earlier. Berdych has more SF participations at GS tournaments than all the tennis players mentioned. None of these tennis players had such a heavy draw as Berdych at Wimbledon 2010, where he met complete Fedalovic (Stich otherwise defeated Becker and Edberg in Wimbledon 1991, but Berdych faced against three ATG players).
As far as Ferrer is concerned, FO 1993-94 could win instead of Bruguera. Or would have a chance at FO 1998, which Moya won. If we swapped the positions of Ferrer and Bruguera/Moya in tennis history, Bruguera/Moya be wouldn't won any FO due to Nadal.
berdych doesn't have a shot at Wim 91, no shot at all.

ferrer would win instead of bruguera in FO 93/94 ?
bruguera absolutely decimated Medvedev in the semi in a phenomenal performance.
and was involved in a titanic classic vs prime Courier in the final.
About zero chance Ferrer wins vs that prime Courier.
First he has to get through Medvedev anyways.

don't think ferrer gets through Courier of FO 94 either, though this Courier wasn't as good as 93.
berasategui vs ferrer could go either way.

I'd give Moya of 98 the clear edge vs Ferrer as well.
Ferrrer vs Corretja in RG 98 could go either way. Ferrer in Moya's place would also have to beat Rios AND Mantilla.

---

AO 02 is not part of the 90s.
98 AO and 99 AO were weaker ones (you missed 99 AO btw) -- Berdych would have a shot at those for sure.
 

Enceladus

Legend
berdych doesn't have a shot at Wim 91, no shot at all.

ferrer would win instead of bruguera in FO 93/94 ?
bruguera absolutely decimated Medvedev in the semi in a phenomenal performance.
and was involved in a titanic classic vs prime Courier in the final.
About zero chance Ferrer wins vs that prime Courier.
First he has to get through Medvedev anyways.

don't think ferrer gets through Courier of FO 94 either, though this Courier wasn't as good as 93.
berasategui vs ferrer could go either way.

I'd give Moya of 98 the clear edge vs Ferrer as well.
Ferrrer vs Corretja in RG 98 could go either way. Ferrer in Moya's place would also have to beat Rios AND Mantilla.

---

AO 02 is not part of the 90s.
98 AO and 99 AO were weaker ones (you missed 99 AO btw) -- Berdych would have a shot at those for sure.
Berdych in the 2010 form would have a chance in 1991 Wimbledon. Doesn't it seem likely, but who expected Wimbledon 1991 won to be someone else than Becker or Edberg?
Greater chances would be Berdych on AO 98 and 99, well. I mentioned AO 2002 because his winner was no better player than Berdych. Johansson is one of the weakest GS winners in the last 30 years.
You obviously underestimate Ferrer. Obviously, if we had Ferrer in Moya's place, he would have won the 1998 FO, Rios and Mantilla would not have been an insurmountable obstacle for him. Anyway, in the 1990s, Ferrer would have a better chance of winning the FO than in the Nadal's era. Conversely, Moya or Bruguera wouldn't have won FO in the Nadal's era.
 

arvind13

Professional
I'm not writing, that be Ferrer and Berdych won 5+ GS titles, but no group of tennis players in history have covered GS tournaments as effectively as Big 3.
When AO 1998 could win Korda, AO 2002 Johannson or Wimbledon 1991 Stich, Berdych could win those tournaments instead of mentioned players if he was born earlier. Berdych has more SF participations at GS tournaments than all the tennis players mentioned. None of these tennis players had such a heavy draw asa Berdych at Wimbledon 2010, where he met complete Fedalovic (Stich otherwise defeated Becker and Edberg in Wimbledon 1991, but Berdych faced against three ATG players).
As far as Ferrer is concerned, FO 1993-94 could win instead of Bruguera. Or would have a chance at FO 1998, which Moya won. If we swapped the positions of Ferrer and Bruguera/Moya in tennis history, Bruguera/Moya be wouldn't won any FO due to Nadal.
n
As I said, I agree that Ferrer could have definitely won a french open or two. berdych, maybe, big maybe he could have won one slam if he got lucky. Stich was a much better player than berdych. and the depth of grass and hard court competition faced by stich was much more than today's era and what was faced by berdych. other than big 3 the tennis field is pretty weak and lacks depth compared to 90s. Look at the depth of competition at wimbledon in 90s for example. we have grass court specialists sampras, becker, krajicek, ivanisevic, rafter, stich, in addition we have non specialists who were still contenders on the grass like agassi, courier. and also dangerous threats like philippoussis, edberg, todd martin. in modern era, we have big 4 (and once in a blue moon wawrinka) and that's pretty much it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Berdych in the 2010 form would have a chance in 1991 Wimbledon. Doesn't it seem likely, but who expected Wimbledon 1991 won to be someone else than Becker or Edberg?
not really. Berdych crumbled mentally on all big moments when he faced Nadal in the final.
Stich in Wim 91 played clearly better than Berdych did in Wim 10 and barely got past Edberg (winning 3 TBs and not even being able to break Edberg once). Berdych 2010 or any other version for that matter is not beating 91 Edberg on grass.

Greater chances would be Berdych on AO 98 and 99, well. I mentioned AO 2002 because his winner was no better player than Berdych. Johansson is one of the weakest GS winners in the last 30 years.
when the conversation is about 90s, no point in talking about 2002.

You obviously underestimate Ferrer. Obviously, if we had Ferrer in Moya's place, he would have won the 1998 FO, Rios and Mantilla would not have been an insurmountable obstacle for him. Anyway, in the 1990s, Ferrer would have a better chance of winning the FO than in the Nadal's era. Conversely, Moya or Bruguera wouldn't have won FO in the Nadal's era.
he'd have to beat Rios, Mantilla AND corretja in a row. Ferrer isn't better than Corretja on clay, FTR.
No, I don't under-estimate Ferrer at all. Its you who over-estimates him and under-estimates the 98 RG draw for Moya.

Ferrer in 05 RG - got destroyed by Nadal
06 RG - lost to #79 ranked Ramirez Hildalgo
07 RG - lost to #32 ranked Verdasco
08 RG - lost to #59 ranked Monfils
09 RG - lost to Soderling
10 RG - lost to #27 Melzer
11 RG - lost to #9 Monfils
12 RG - got destroyed by Nadal
13 RG - lost to Nadal
14 RG - lost to Nadal, competitive in first 2 sets, then got destroyed.

from 06-11 at RG (except for 09), all were matches he should have won, but didn't.
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
Nadal's chances have taken a big hit today, I don't think he is winning Rome now either, considering the manner in which he lost today, and that his Rome draw is a lot harder than the one he had in Madrid. I think Djokovic's chances have gone up by virtue of beating Thiem but also by Nadal losing today and looking more susceptible to a loss by other players. However, Djokovic should win tomorrow if he really wants to get into pole position before the final leg to French Open glory. A loss to Tsitsipas is not going to be good for him, considering how much his opponent has played and the late finish today.

I also don't think Djokovic is in full Earth's Mightiest Warrior mode yet, there were flashes of it against Thiem, but he still has a few levels he can go up. He did finish stronger than when he started the match. At his best form, he doesn't have back to back slow starts in both sets. He is normally more clinical and less error prone.
Nice, I agree completely :)
 
Top