A Case for Straight Sets Victory for Djokovic at RG Final vs Nadal

[OddJack]

If Nadal makes it there.

A well written piece by Branimir Iliev:

It’s heresy, I know. Yet keep in mind that the blasphemies of one heretic can become the religion of many. This has happened before in human history.

The zeitgeist of our tennis world is finally moving forward. Nothing is sacred anymore, no one is safe. There are no certainties in sports. Or change is the only constant, as the wisdom goes. How dare I proclaim, let alone with any certainty then, that Djokovic will prevail over Nadal on his favored surface?

Simply, because people, certain people, are too certain that Nadal will win. This presumption annoys me and I aim to undermine it with a brand of analytical logic alien to some of these defenders of the faith.

I will seek to persuade you, dear reader, before your right eyebrow curls too skeptical an arch, that this year is a special year when certain constants are turned on their heads and change takes its rightful place as the only finality.

Here I intend to show with a slew of slides a provocative yet true case for Djokovic winning the French Open and winning it in what will be a convincing manner. The new Novak will not only beat Nadal, if the Spaniard even makes the final, he will beat him in straight sets.

There will not be a pair of Spanish mandibles mutilating the Roland Garros trophy this year. Just a pair of sinewy Serbian arms raising the trophy high to a collective breath of relief in France.

 

[OddJack]

The customary silverware seems to be absent from the Nadal trophy cabinet this year. King Rafa did win Monte Carlo, a clay event, in a final pitting him against David Ferrer. But this event most noticeably lacked his Serbian nemesis across the net. Even more noticeably, the Serbian thief seems to have ransacked the remaining Nadal clay season cabinet. What happened?

When Novak Djokovic has participated in a clay tournament this year he has won it. When Rafael Nadal has participated in the same tournament, Djokovic has still won it. Djokovic has beaten Nadal in both of their meetings on clay- on ‘fast’ clay and on ‘slow’ clay. Maybe we can try a medium rare-red clay with a chewier texture and a super-glue glaze on top next, though I will venture to say the result will probably be the same. King Rafa is 0-2 against Djokovic on clay this year and 0-4 overall.

At this point Rafa Nadal is more like King Charles I on clay and unfortunately for him, Novak Djokovic is his Cromwell. Rafa’s invincibility on clay is no more. Djokovic can go toe-to-toe with him on this surface well enough to come out on top as this year’s lopsided record demonstrates. And we are talking about this year’s Novak Djokovic - a new man altogether - lest we are forgetting.

 

[F-T-S]

i love how he keeps saying "if he even makes it..." (combo-breaker)

 

[OddJack]

This must be an upsetting revelation to many. Sure. But it still has the merit of being true. It doesn’t quite have the versatility or creativity of Roger Federer’s -yet- but it is more consistent, more penetrating and heavier than the old master’s. I am not sure why this is still even debated. Depressing, yes, if you are a Federer fan like me but not really up for debate anymore. We can be sentimental about this or we can try to be objective about this. Quite simply, Novak Djokovic has the best forehand in the game right now.

The Australian Open semi-final demonstrated the brutal efficiency and effectiveness of the Djoker’s forehand against the previous best forehand in the game no less. But why ‘best’? Why not choose a safer phrase like ‘one of the best’?

First, Djokovic hits it deep into the backcourt usually some inches away from the baseline. He can hit it with top-spin or flat and with lots of pace. Second, he hits it with a consistency exceeding that of Rafael Nadal’s, winning his baseline rallies against all who would try this approach including the Clay King. Third, his cross-court forehand is lethal. It looks like the ‘swallow cut’ of a famous ancient Japanese samurai. A quick whirl and the ball is sent flying back deep into the Nadal backhand forcing him off the court. It can turn even a losing rally around very quickly for Djokovic. He hits the inside-out remarkably well too.

Who else has a forehand this consistent, this penetrating, this heavy and this versatile? You have the heaviness and the pace of the Del Potros and Berdyches and Soderlings of the tennis world but none of these guys’ forehands are as versatile or as consistent or as good on the move as Djokovic’s.

 

[OddJack]

Novak’s backhand is, I suppose one could grudgingly admit, ‘old news’. We’ve been hearing about it ever since the man turned pro. So much promise. And up until this year not a whole lot of delivery on the early promise. But has it delivered this year! Oomphing cross-court, or zipping down the line, it is a thing of beauty or a thing of terror if it is being used against your favorite player. Really there is little comparison between Nadal’s backhand and the Djokovic backhand. The Djokovic is just better because it is more versatile and more effective. This disparity was really made obvious in their last match. Djokovic confidently hit Nadal’s cross-court forehand with his signature backhand-down-the-line and even if it wasn’t clean winners most of the time, it quickly put Nadal on his heels in the ongoing rally.

 

[OddJack]

Djokovic attacks Nadal’s serves more than Nadal can attack Djokovic’s serves. Novak’s serves tend to be flat, heavy and fast. But their biggest strength is again the consistency - in his last match he was hitting his first serve at 75% - note, in a final against Nadal, on clay. Now, Nadal’s are also very consistent but they are not as flat or as fast. They have much more spin but Djokovic has shown more than capable with dealing with that spin. Or let’s just say, he is not as bothered by it as some others would be. Also, the Djokovic backhand can effectively retrieve serves out wide to its side unlike Roger who struggles with the height and spin.

On return of serve, these two men are equal. Both are equally talented in saving difficult opponents’ serves and putting the ball into play. However, because Nadal’s serve often lacks the mph’s of Djokovic’s serve, in a match between the two, the latter can do a little more with the serve of the former. This is confirmed by the return points won statistic where Djokovic is 45% to Nadal’s 38%.

 

[OddJack]

In one long foreign word: Djokovic. Novak has played the big points bigger than anyone this year. He can get broken and he does get broken sometimes. But that’s not the point, if you’ll pardon the pun. He breaks others more often and when he is broken he does not panic. He also does not choke when tasked with closing out sets or matches. He has shown a new mental toughness that was absent in his early years.

In his matches with Nadal, late in the sets, Djokovic won the big points, breaking when he had to, or consolidating when he had to. These important psychological tendencies will serve the Serb well in another match-up with Rafa Nadal.

 

[OddJack]

Rafael Nadal and Novak Dkokovic are the two best baseline tennis players in the world today. But with the Djoker stabilizing and maturing his already talented forehands and backhands as described in the previous slides, he has taken to bully Nadal of all people from the baseline. He has been winning the baseline rallies and this on the toughest surface and this against its best specialist. Here I am tempted to say that Nadal is the preeminent baseline bully on the face of his making such a successful, dominant career out of that position. However, this is not a lifetime achievement award for play from that position. We are talking about the present. So at this point, I am arguing that Djokovic is undaunted by Nadal and is using a more penetrating and heavier forehand to push Nadal far behing the baseline.

At the net, both men exhibit intelligence and a fine touch. Not quite on the Federer level but...they don’t need to be. They execute drop shots really well, their volleys are proficient although they don’t venture to the net as often as they could with the skills they have. Of course, this is only natural because as I said, and as most people already know, they are both primarily baseline players.

Court coverage can be dissected into three major components: foot speed, agility and court awareness. I think Novak and Nadal are equals in two of these areas- agility and court awareness. And maybe even in terms of lateral movement foot speed Novak is equal to Nadal. But in forward movement I think Nadal exceeds him. Nadal still catches some drop shots he has no business catching. His foot speed is the best in the game. A slight edge to Nadal in foot speed here.

 

[OddJack]

Novak Djokovic is no longer a one-slam wonder. He has a second slam on his resume and a huge pressure has been lifted off his shoulders. He changed his diet, he changed his life and his attitude toward the game is brimming with self-belief. As a positive consequence, his results have been nothing short of spectacular. His win streak is 39-0. He has defeated his biggest rivals, eclipsing them in their matches and boosting his confidence to unprecedented levels. Let’s also understand that Djokovic had an opportunity to give up on a match here and there during this win streak - against Nadal in the Sony Ericsson Open when Nadal took the first set with a determined ferocity, when Federer came storming back in the second set in Indian Wells, when he was even way down in the second set in his semifinal in the Australian with Roger, when Murray had him by the throat in Rome. These were ample opportunities to just be satisfied with a smaller streak or lesser results and just pack it in. Djokovic did not - instead, in his toughest moments Djokovic came back and defeated his opponents- made them quit.


Whereas with history on the line, Nadal wilted at the Australian. Thigh muscles were spontaneously torn and many shirts perspired through when David Ferrer stiffly resisted in the quarter-finals. The excuses then followed like a deluge, his fans desperately grasping at straws.


What will happen then? Dare I put it in cold print? Bookies be damned, dare I will. So here it is:


With an unmatched mental toughness this year, the unearthing of some deep reservoir of self-belief, a confidence forged through winning and winning some more, and physically fit like an Ivan Lendl or a Lance Armstrong, Novak Djokovic will tear through his competition in the French Open and dismiss Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the final.

 

[OddJack]

The " even if Nadal makes it to final" was from the writer.

And, yes...there is always a possibility he doesnt, same for djoko

 

[westside]

I hope Federer wins it. Just to stir the pot

 

[Manus Domini]

At this point Rafa Nadal is more like King Charles I on clay and unfortunately for him, Novak Djokovic is his Cromwell.

That just made me a *******. Cromwell was one of the worst dictators ever and a huge jerk, imo, and Charles should not have been deposed. I'm still bitter about that, and it happened hundreds of years ago

 

[OddJack]

That just made me a *******. Cromwell was one of the worst dictators ever and a huge jerk, imo, and Charles should not have been deposed. I'm still bitter about that, and it happened hundreds of years ago

Not writer's fault that you know your history.

Give us better examples, if you will

 

[Manus Domini]

Not writer's fault that you know your history.

Give us better examples, if you will

Nadal is Voldemort and Djokovic is a Snape who doesn't die

 

[KHSOLO]

I hope Federer wins it. Just to stir the pot

Haha, that would be something !

 

[single_handed_champion]

Usual hyperbole from a disgusted fan who is pretending to give in. It could very well happen though, I don't deny it.

 

[SiriusTennis]

I hope Federer wins it. Just to stir the pot

LOL

 

[Mustard]

That just made me a *******. Cromwell was one of the worst dictators ever and a huge jerk, imo, and Charles should not have been deposed. I'm still bitter about that, and it happened hundreds of years ago

King Charles I suspended parliament several times on a whim. He once ruled without any kind of parliament for 11 years from 1629-1640 and only recalled it because he needed funds to fight a war against the Scots. The English civil war of the 1640s was about either loyalty to the throne or loyalty to parliament. The Roundheads (i.e. the Parliamentarians/Cromwell's side) were definitely the progressive force in that war. Even after the Roundheads had won, Charles I rejected any sort of compromise with the victorious Roundheads, and even plotted against them again! Cromwell and co. then went from wanting a compromise with the throne, to wanting its complete abolition.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Cromwell committed many atrocities, like the suppression of the Levellers and the Diggers who wanted to take the revolution further, as well as the mass murders carried out in Ireland, a place where Cromwell is a hated figure to this day. Despite all this, the victory of the Roundheads in England was hugely progressive. King Charles I, like his future equivalents, Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II, were thrown into the dustbin of history where their autocracy belonged.

 

[ledwix]

This is the best thread I've seen on here. I don't agree with the conclusion, but it was well-written. I think the Djokedal match-up is likely again, but I think Nadal gets one of the sets. Djokovic is playing at a level that seems impossible to keep up for three whole hours against Nadal on clay. He's been doing it for two hours okay so far.

 

[8PAQ]

Not writer's fault that you know your history.

Give us better examples, if you will

Nadal is like a toilet that just won't flush and Novak is trying to flush it after taking a dump in it at his gf apartment.

 

[Mustard]

This is the best thread I've seen on here. I don't agree with the conclusion, but it was well-written. I think the Djokedal match-up is likely again, but I think Nadal gets one of the sets. Djokovic is playing at a level that seems impossible to keep up for three whole hours against Nadal on clay. He's been doing it for two hours okay so far.

I'm sure Nadal will figure Djokovic out at some point. It's just the sort of challenge he loves. Whether he does it at the French Open remains to be seen.

 

[OddJack]

I disagree that best of 5 against Djok is a win factor for Nadal. Djok is not a quitter. Plus Nadal has to run twice as much because he runs around his BH and Djok almost never does. In the last 4 finals I have watched Djok has been the fresher player at the end.

 

[OddJack]

I'm sure Nadal will figure Djokovic out at some point. It's just the sort of challenge he loves. Whether he does it at the French Open remains to be seen.

I think Toni is under some pressure here. You'd think after losing 3 str8 he would of come up with some plans other than that moonbaling.

 

[ledwix]

Not a quitter, but there have been times when Djoke has made a bunch of errors in a few games, like when he gave up the 4-0 lead in Madrid. His backhand kept netting for a while if I remember correctly.

 

[Mustard]

I think Toni is under some pressure here. You'd think after losing 3 str8 he would of come up with some plans other than that moonbaling.

It's actually 4 straight. Nadal played much better in the Indian Wells and Miami finals than he did in the Madrid and Rome finals. Nadal's forehand flew through the court more on the hardcourts and had more oomph behind it, whereas Nadal really struggled to win points in the Madrid and Rome finals unless he hit a clean winner or Djokovic made an unforced error.

 

[OddJack]

Another factor would be the French crowd.

in Rome, I could hear Nole, Nole chants repeatedly. I expect more support in Paris for Novak. Not that it affects Rafa, but it can boost Djoker.

 

[OddJack]

It's actually 4 straight. Nadal played much better in the Indian Wells and Miami finals than he did in the Madrid and Rome finals. Nadal's forehand flew through the court more on the hardcourts and had more oomph behind it, whereas Nadal really struggled to win points in the Madrid and Rome finals unless he hit a clean winner or Djokovic made an unforced error.

I know its 4 strght, I meant after 3 losses Toni shuldve figured a plan for the 4th

 

[Antonio Puente]

I would say there is about a 10% chance they even meet in the finals. Things like that just don't happen. I wouldn't bet on the same two players making the finals for a fifth straight time. If it were another 1000, perhaps, but not when both must make it through 7 five setters.

As for the article, people always look at what happens in 1000s and assume the same will happen in slams, but that is rarely the case. A slam is a different world.

 

[ninman]

I would say there is about a 10% chance they even meet in the finals. Things like that just don't happen. I wouldn't bet on the same two players making the finals for a fifth straight time. If it were another 1000, perhaps, but not when both must make it through 7 five setters.

As for the article, people always look at what happens in 1000s and assume the same will happen in slams, but that is rarely the case. A slam is a different world.

Back in 2006 Federer and Nadal met in the Final of Monte-Carlo, Rome and then RG, followed by Wimbledon.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Back in 2006 Federer and Nadal met in the Final of Monte-Carlo, Rome and then RG, followed by Wimbledon.

Yeah four, and I'm sure four is rare. Five could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it happening.

 

[OddJack]

Players with higher number of master titles also have the higher number of majors. Not that much of a different world.

 

[Mustard]

Players with higher number of master titles also have the higher number of majors. Not that much of a different world.

Uh? Nadal has more masters than Federer, but Federer has more slams. Agassi has more masters than Sampras, but Sampras has more slams. Rios and Medvedev got 5 and 4 masters respectively without ever winning a slam, while Kafelnikov never won a masters but got 2 slams.

 

[ledwix]

I would say there is about a 10% chance they even meet in the finals. Things like that just don't happen. I wouldn't bet on the same two players making the finals for a fifth straight time.

You realize that the chances don't go down just because it's happened four times in a row? They are clearly the two best clay players, so I'd give it at least a 50% chance, if not higher, of a Djokedal final again.

For comparison, Federer/Nadal met in just over half the grand slam finals from RG2006 to AO2009. And they only didn't meet in the hard court finals every time due to Nadal not being on his peak on hard courts. Djokovic is peaking on clay, and of course Nadal is always great there.

 

[OddJack]

Uh? Nadal has more masters than Federer, but Federer has more slams. Agassi has more masters than Sampras, but Sampras has more slams. Rios and Medvedev got 5 and 4 masters respectively without ever winning a slam, while Kafelnikov never won a masters but got 2 slams.

LOL

You keep misunderstanding what I say.

I didnt say whoever has higher master count has higher major count as well.

My point was players with high number of master titles have also done better in major tournaments.

 

[Mustard]

LOL

You keep misunderstanding what I say.

I didnt say whoever has higher master count has higher major count as well.

My point was players with high number of master titles have also done better in major tournaments.

The slams are a step up from other tournaments, though. Not just the best of 5 sets format but the history, expectations and pressure involved with the biggest tournaments.

 

[OddJack]

The slams are a step up from other tournaments, though. Not just the best of 5 sets format but the history, expectations and pressure involved with the biggest tournaments.

Yes exactly, there is no doubt about that.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Players with higher number of master titles also have the higher number of majors. Not that much of a different world.

It depends. Murray and Djoker have 14 masters titles and two slams between them.

When you look at the great players like Sampras, Fed and Nadal, it's striking how often their results leading up to slams are rendered irrelevant by their subsequent play in slams.

 

[Lawn Tennis]

I hope Federer wins it. Just to stir the pot

16 slams are enough! If you really just want things to be unpredictable, hope for Murray, Gasquet, or Ferrer to take it.

This must be an upsetting revelation to many. Sure. But it still has the merit of being true. It doesn’t quite have the versatility or creativity of Roger Federer’s -yet- but it is more consistent, more penetrating and heavier than the old master’s. I am not sure why this is still even debated. Depressing, yes, if you are a Federer fan like me but not really up for debate anymore. We can be sentimental about this or we can try to be objective about this. Quite simply, Novak Djokovic has the best forehand in the game right now.

The Australian Open semi-final demonstrated the brutal efficiency and effectiveness of the Djoker’s forehand against the previous best forehand in the game no less. But why ‘best’? Why not choose a safer phrase like ‘one of the best’?

First, Djokovic hits it deep into the backcourt usually some inches away from the baseline. He can hit it with top-spin or flat and with lots of pace. Second, he hits it with a consistency exceeding that of Rafael Nadal’s, winning his baseline rallies against all who would try this approach including the Clay King. Third, his cross-court forehand is lethal. It looks like the ‘swallow cut’ of a famous ancient Japanese samurai. A quick whirl and the ball is sent flying back deep into the Nadal backhand forcing him off the court. It can turn even a losing rally around very quickly for Djokovic. He hits the inside-out remarkably well too.

Who else has a forehand this consistent, this penetrating, this heavy and this versatile? You have the heaviness and the pace of the Del Potros and Berdyches and Soderlings of the tennis world but none of these guys’ forehands are as versatile or as consistent or as good on the move as Djokovic’s.

Disagree. Better forehands are Nadal, Federer, Soderling, Berdych, Monfils, and Fish just to name several.

If we could somehow find stats on Djokovic's fh vs bh, I would expect the fh to have double the unforced and half the winners compared to his bh.

 

[Antonio Puente]

You realize that the chances don't go down just because it's happened four times in a row?

So, two players would have the same odds of making it to 5 finals as they did to 4, 3, 2 & 1?

 

[Sentinel]

The excuses then followed like a deluge, his fans desperately grasping at straws.

Author peruses TW !!! We folks have to tone it down (I mean fans of all players).

 

[namelessone]

Another factor would be the French crowd.

in Rome, I could hear Nole, Nole chants repeatedly. I expect more support in Paris for Novak. Not that it affects Rafa, but it can boost Djoker.

It's gotta affect him on some level cause he is human.

I mean, being five times champ in a place and people not really warming up to you.

I noticed that they took it easier on him in 2010 RG, some of the french media were even trying to make Nadal look better for the crowd, praising him in interviews, even guys that didn't like Nadal(like Forget) were going on about his clay prowess and so on...

Nadal had way more adamant support in AO/WB and,this came as a surprise to me, in USO even though Nadal is about as far culturally and tennis wise from the USO crowd(he doesn't speak good english, isn't a ballbasher or big server) as it gets. The only thing Nadal has that the USO crowd appreciates is guts cause his topspinny game is not something they are used to on the hardcourts of USO.

 

[TennisFan3]

Given the form of both players - it would seem, that the author could be right. I wouldn't be surprised if Djoker took out Nadal in straights.

The Djoker is in Nadal's head big time. And Toni has been an EPIC FAIL! Nadal needs to get outside help pronto - or it might get too little too late.

The telling thing for me was how Djokovic broke Nadal. In both Madrid and Rome he got 0-40 on Nadal's serve in the final game of EACH match.

I recall in Rome Final, at 4-5, I was almost sure Nadal would get broken - and he was. It's like Djokovic broke at will. Nadal couldn't do anything to save those points - not even win the first point on his serve.

To me that indicates a huge mental edge for Djokovic. Nadal knew he had to serve to stay in the match and faltered on both occasions. Both Madrid/Rome were close affairs, but Djokovic won ALL of the important points.

This mental edge could be hard to overcome, even if Nadal lifts his game..

It'll take Nadal MONTHS to figure out this Djokovic problem (IF EVER), certainly not days. RG is too soon. Nadal must hope for someone to catch fire and take out Novak.

 

[CMM]

Another Bleacher Report "article"..

 

[ViscaB]

Nadal had way more adamant support in AO/WB and,this came as a surprise to me, in USO even though Nadal is about as far culturally and tennis wise from the USO crowd(he doesn't speak good english, isn't a ballbasher or big server) as it gets. The only thing Nadal has that the USO crowd appreciates is guts cause his topspinny game is not something they are used to on the hardcourts of USO.

Americans like people that have charisma and a never give up mentality.

Well the Parisians like nobody. And you can imagine they have many reasons to hate themselves. They don't like Nadal since he doesn't speak French during the victory ceremony and has beaten a lot of French players through the years.

The English at Wimbledon love Rafa since they are actual tennis fans and have a culture of respect.

Back to the thread topic. Djokovic will have to fight to get to the final first to potentially meet Nadal. RG is a very different beast. Djokovic has only won 2 Grand Slams. On top of that the least important one with the least pressure and prestige.

 

[OddJack]

For once Nadal fans maybe praying for Rodge to win.

Djoker's most likely opponent at RG SF.

 

[ViscaB]

For once Nadal fans maybe praying for Rodge to win.

Djoker's most likely opponent at RG SF.

When you support a big player you only care for that player winning. Wanting others to lose is such a "small team mentality".

 

[namelessone]

Americans like people that have charisma and a never give up mentality.

Yes, but Nadal plays a spinny game, no traditional american style, big serves and powerful strokes.

Past winners in USO in the last years were guys like sampras,rafter,hewitt,roddick,agassi,safin,fed,delpo. All had clean strokes, very good serves(except hewitt and agassi). Rafa served big for a couple of tourneys including USO but never had a huge serve and his strokes, while powerful, were not booming like safin/delpo/prime federer.

I agree on the never giving up mentality.

The English at Wimbledon love Rafa since they are actual tennis fans and have a culture of respect.

I was actually a bit shocked by their fairness at the time. Many, many people in the stands wanted Murray to win(especially since a final against birdman/djoker looked winable as opposed to Federer) but they still aplauded Nadal's great points. I didn't expect this cause the british crowd was cheering Wawrinka's UE a couple of nights beforehand against Andy and I was expecting something similar when facing Rafa.

 

[ViscaB]

Yes, but Nadal plays a spinny game, no traditional american style, big serves and powerful strokes.

Past winners in USO in the last years were guys like sampras,rafter,hewitt,roddick,agassi,safin,fed,delpo. All had clean strokes, very good serves(except hewitt and agassi). Rafa served big for a couple of tourneys including USO but never had a huge serve and his strokes, while powerful, were not booming like safin/delpo/prime federer.

I agree on the never giving up mentality.

Maybe it played a role that he had never won it before.

I was actually a bit shocked by their fairness at the time. Many, many people in the stands wanted Murray to win(especially since a final against birdman/djoker looked winable as opposed to Federer) but they still aplauded Nadal's great points. I didn't expect this cause the british crowd was cheering Wawrinka's UE a couple of nights beforehand against Andy and I was expecting something similar when facing Rafa.

That's what I love about Wimbledon. It's all about tradition and respect for the players. At the same time I agree with you that it's so surprising. In many other tournaments fans take side for their home hero much more. In the case of Roland Garros it's often so shameful that I want to turn off the tv.

Rafa is very popular with the younger generations who love his image. There are a quite a few Spanish football players at well at the moment in the Premier league like Cesc Fabregas or Pepe Reina who are very popular as well in the UK.

 

[Manus Domini]

King Charles I suspended parliament several times on a whim. He once ruled without any kind of parliament for 11 years from 1629-1640 and only recalled it because he needed funds to fight a war against the Scots. The English civil war of the 1640s was about either loyalty to the throne or loyalty to parliament. The Roundheads (i.e. the Parliamentarians/Cromwell's side) were definitely the progressive force in that war. Even after the Roundheads had won, Charles I rejected any sort of compromise with the victorious Roundheads, and even plotted against them again! Cromwell and co. then went from wanting a compromise with the throne, to wanting its complete abolition.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Cromwell committed many atrocities, like the suppression of the Levellers and the Diggers who wanted to take the revolution further, as well as the mass murders carried out in Ireland, a place where Cromwell is a hated figure to this day. Despite all this, the victory of the Roundheads in England was hugely progressive. King Charles I, like his future equivalents, Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II, were thrown into the dustbin of history where their autocracy belonged.

Charles, Louis, and Nicholas were far better than Cromwell, Robbespierre, and Stalin...

 

[tlm]

It's actually 4 straight. Nadal played much better in the Indian Wells and Miami finals than he did in the Madrid and Rome finals. Nadal's forehand flew through the court more on the hardcourts and had more oomph behind it, whereas Nadal really struggled to win points in the Madrid and Rome finals unless he hit a clean winner or Djokovic made an unforced error.

This is very true, doesn't it seems odd that rafa had a better shot on the hard courts where he went 3 sets with the last one being a tiebreak to decide the match. But so far on clay rafa has not won a set against joker, this really seems like the opposite of what would normally happen.