Analysis of the first set of the FO2020

NatF

Bionic Poster
well, at least you didn't mention the "lamestream" media! :laughing:

I don't really care too much about comparing level of play across time. A lot of posters here seem to enjoy that and are convinced they just "know" who would win in time travel tennis. Since those same posters can never manage to predict actual real matches I have no faith in their ability to judge hypothetical ones.

That's why I don't focus on "levels" (which can't be measured) but rather focus on results (which can). When you look at the results Novak's streak since late last year is pretty unique, as actual tennis experts have commented repeatedly.

Ah the recourse of the Djokovic fan - Lew syndrome. Perhaps because it would harm your world view to look deeper...
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
well, at least you didn't mention the "lamestream" media! :laughing:

I don't really care too much about comparing level of play across time. A lot of posters here seem to enjoy that and are convinced they just "know" who would win in time travel tennis. Since those same posters can never manage to predict actual real matches I have no faith in their ability to judge hypothetical ones.

That's why I don't focus on "levels" (which can't be measured) but rather focus on results (which can). When you look at the results Novak's streak since late last year is pretty unique, as actual tennis experts have commented repeatedly.

Well following that logic, no need for this thread. You got your result (6-0), why go into deeper analysis of level of play ;).

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle (as cliche as that is), field has been lacking but you still have to reach an impressive level to dominate it. Winning streaks consist of ugly wins too, which people tend to forget.

P.S. Mainstream media is indeed one big joke, that I firmly believe. Doesn't mean I'll believe every conspiracy theory but I'll pause before completely discarding them.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I believe the Tsits match was different from the Nadal match wasn't it? And I said near peak anyways. How else can you explain an undefeated season up to that point?

See that's the problem. Some like to portray him as unbeatable because he didn't lose a single match in which case we'd have to concede he's at his peak. My personal opinion is that he wasn't anywhere as dominant as the stats suggest. If we had had a regular season without the pandemic, I believe someone would have beaten him much earlier in the season. Impressive streak at his age nevertheless.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
It isn't? Would love to see his average time between serves this FO.

It was always a second or two before the shot clock expired. When it wasn’t he received a violation.

Sometimes you could see he didn’t even go through his normal routine, after the towel he’d just catch the ball from the ballboy and serve.

A big proportion of Nadals first serves clipped the net. So then he took some more time on his second first serve.

All of this is within the rules, still.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
See that's the problem. Some like to portray him as unbeatable because he didn't lose a single match in which case we'd have to concede he's at his peak. My personal opinion is that he wasn't anywhere as dominant as the stats suggest. If we had had a regular season without the pandemic, I believe someone would have beaten him much earlier in the season. Impressive streak at his age nevertheless.

Great so you agree Federer wasn't anywhere near his peak in 08 Wimbledon when he lost to Nadal, despite not losing a set prior.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Well following that logic, no need for this thread. You got your result (6-0), why go into deeper analysis of level of play ;).

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle (as cliche as that is), field has been lacking but you still have to reach an impressive level to dominate it. Winning streaks consist of ugly wins too, which people tend to forget.

P.S. Mainstream media is indeed one big joke, that I firmly believe. Doesn't mean I'll believe every conspiracy theory but I'll pause before completely discarding them.
I'd be quite interested in analysis that can compare levels of play. How would you do that? I used % of matches against top 10 as a proxy.
 

TennisFan3

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal came out with a higher level than Novak expected. Much higher. Novak admitted the same in his presser - that he was "surprised" by Nadal's quality. Here's what was different:

Nadal's serve: In their matchup we ALWAYS assume that Novak is the better server. He is. Almost always. Except for RG 2020 Final. Nadal's serve placement was impeccable. Nadal picked his spots - the patterns were completely different from their usual matches (where Nadal serves all over the place). So, Novak actually went deep to return serve. Novak has NEVER returned Nadal from so far back in any of their matches ever. Result: Novak couldn't be aggressive on serve returns.
Nadal's return: Nadal returned better than he almost ever has vs Novak. Nadal had 100% of Novak 2nd serves back in play and 98.5% of Novak first serves back in play. Novak got NOTHING on serve. - no free points at all He tried to go bigger on 1st serve (6 mph higher than earlier rounds) - but that back-fired and dropped the 1st serve % below 50%.
Nadal first strike tennis: Nadal was taking more cuts at the beginning of the rally -especially on the forehand. The 0-4 rally points, which we do NOT see on the highlight reel, Nadal won a majority of them. So Novak plays an excellent long point, but Nadal wins the next one in a couple of shots.
Nadal's backhand : I had mentioned earlier that Nadal wasn't hitting his backhand well in RG 2020. Different story in the final. Novak-Nadal matches have a common pattern - Novak pushes Nadal out wide on his backhand by using his own cross court angled forehand and then attacks in the open court when Nadal coughs up a short reply. Nadal countered this tactic by just standing in and taking deeper cuts on the backhand. Flattening out his CC backhand earlier in the rally. Also using the DTL backhand deeper than usual to keep Novak pinned back.

Doing all this - Nadal did NOT make any errors, which was key. Because of his spin, Nadal has a LOT of margin on his shots. Novak realized that Nadal could keep this level throughout the match without any problems.
That flustered Novak. He got discouraged. So the obvious solutions --- HIT BIGGER. His forehand and backhand mphs were 4-6 mph higher than earlier in the tournament. The problem with that strategy, however, far MORE UFEs.
Novak would play an excellent point and outmaneuver Nadal ONLY to see Nadal not dropping intensity at all and then winning most of the shorter points+ the key points.

If I had to summarize, I would say that Nadal really bought it ON the court. Djokovic realized that he would have play a much higher level to be able to outplay Nadal. He had go for FAR MORE than he usually does. Novak is no Soderling, Del Potro or even Federer. He doesn't have the power to blow you off the ground. Yet, he realized this is the only way he could beat Rafa. When you do that, you make more errors - which is exactly what happened. Nadal outplayed and out thought him as well. Nadal played aggressively yet within percentages and the patterns that always work - the execution was flawless. (only 3 UFes in the first 2 sets)

Yes it was a close 6-0 set. It might have been 6-3 or 6-2 as well. But the winner was never in doubt. Novak was straining and overplaying to match Nadal's level and could not consistently hit big enough or string enough good points together. This is one of the smartest matches I've ever seen Nadal play. Novak doesn't deserve to win only 7 games - he played far better than that- but Nadal was imperious and played the big points perfectly. The only dip was in the 3rd set, when Nadal started serving BAD. Novak broke, but you always knew Nadal would break back and Novak would be under pressure and make more UFEs (exactly what happened in the 5-5 game of the 3rd set). It was a one-sided match, although maybe not as much as the scoreline indicated.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There is no way you win 40 matches, including nine to top-10 players, with "smoke and mirrors". I get it that some Fedal fans have a vested interest in diminishing what Novak has done (maybe to make themselves feel better, maybe to take off the sting of Novak getting the #1 records) but this is just nonsense.
Hasn't exactly faced many good players after the ATP Cup and the AO. That's about it. Only played 2 matches against top 10 opponents after the AO.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Great so you agree Federer wasn't anywhere near his peak in 08 Wimbledon when he lost to Nadal, despite not losing a set prior.

Machan ... in general I don't subscribe to either the weak era or prime/post-prime concept. If you play, the results are what they are whatever the conditions may be. But because you've asked, no I don't agree. I think Federer was pretty much in his prime. He won 4 of the following 6 slams and reached the final in the other 2. Sounds like someone at his very best.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Difference between FO08 and FO20, is Fed was coming off mono while Novak was close to peak.
FO 2008 just happened to be one of Fed's worst versions in a slam and it just happened to be at the FO and against Nadal at his absolute best. Recipe for disaster.

Any other version of Fed wouldn't have got bageled.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Why does it have to measured? What's wrong with good spirited, informed but subjective discourse? The win/loss alone doesn't say anything about how they played.

The attempt to remove observation and critical thinking from the discussion of these players is asinine.

Because you, and others here, are making a very strong claim and so it should be accompanied by equally strong evidence. When I point out that Novak's 40 match streak at 33 is unique and that neither Nadal nor Fed (fellow co-GOATs) managed something like that at the same age you (and others) claim that that is a reflection of the weak players Novak faced. Since the posters that are making this claim are all Fedal fans it raises the question of whether what you see as "observation and critical thinking" is simply supporting your guy. ;)

So where is the evidence supporting this claim? Did the field weaken so significantly in just one year (Remember that Nadal's equivalent season is 2019)? Fed's equivalent season was 2014 and if you look at his first 40 matches the first loss is against Hewitt, ranked #60 at the time. Are you arguing that that Hewitt was stronger than any player Novak faced since last December (when his "streak" started)?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Hasn't exactly faced many good players after the ATP Cup and the AO. That's about it. Only played 2 matches against top 10 opponents after the AO.

After the AO Novak faced four top 10 opponents and won three of those matches. He faced another five top 20 players, beating all of them.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Nadal came out with a higher level than Novak expected. Much higher. Novak admitted the same in his presser - that he was "surprised" by Nadal's quality. Here's what was different:

Nadal's serve: In their matchup we ALWAYS assume that Novak is the better server. He is. Almost always. Except for RG 2020 Final. Nadal's serve placement was impeccable. Nadal picked his spots - the patterns were completely different from their usual matches (where Nadal serves all over the place). So, Novak actually went deep to return serve. Novak has NEVER returned Nadal from so far back in any of their matches ever. Result: Novak couldn't be aggressive on serve returns.
Nadal's return: Nadal returned better than he almost ever has vs Novak. Nadal had 100% of Novak 2nd serves back in play and 98.5% of Novak first serves back in play. Novak got NOTHING on serve. - no free points at all He tried to go bigger on 1st serve (6 mph higher than earlier rounds) - but that back-fired and dropped the 1st serve % below 50%.
Nadal first strike tennis: Nadal was taking more cuts at the beginning of the rally -especially on the forehand. The 0-4 rally points, which we do NOT see on the highlight reel, Nadal won a majority of them. So Novak plays an excellent long point, but Nadal wins the next one in a couple of shots.
Nadal's backhand : I had mentioned earlier that Nadal wasn't hitting his backhand well in RG 2020. Different story in the final. Novak-Nadal matches have a common pattern - Novak pushes Nadal out wide on his backhand by using his own cross court angled forehand and then attacks in the open court when Nadal coughs up a short reply. Nadal countered this tactic by just standing in and taking deeper cuts on the backhand. Flattening out his CC backhand earlier in the rally. Also using the DTL backhand deeper than usual to keep Novak pinned back.

Doing all this - Nadal did NOT make any errors, which was key. Because of his spin, Nadal has a LOT of margin on his shots. Novak realized that Nadal could keep this level throughout the match without any problems.
That flustered Novak. He got discouraged. So the obvious solutions --- HIT BIGGER. His forehand and backhand mphs were 4-6 mph higher than earlier in the tournament. The problem with that strategy, however, far MORE UFEs.
Novak would play an excellent point and outmaneuver Nadal ONLY to see Nadal not dropping intensity at all and then winning most of the shorter points+ the key points.

If I had to summarize, I would say that Nadal really bought it ON the court. Djokovic realized that he would have play a much higher level to be able to outplay Nadal. He had go for FAR MORE than he usually does. Novak is no Soderling, Del Potro or even Federer. He doesn't have the power to blow you off the ground. Yet, he realized this is the only way he could beat Rafa. When you do that, you make more errors - which is exactly what happened. Nadal outplayed and out thought him as well. Nadal played aggressively yet within percentages and the patterns that always work - the execution was flawless. (only 3 UFes in the first 2 sets)

Yes it was a close 6-0 set. It might have been 6-3 or 6-2 as well. But the winner was never in doubt. Novak was straining and overplaying to match Nadal's level and could not consistently hit big enough or string enough good points together. This is one of the smartest matches I've ever seen Nadal play. Novak doesn't deserve to win only 7 games - he played far better than that- but Nadal was imperious and played the big points perfectly. The only dip was in the 3rd set, when Nadal started serving BAD. Novak broke, but you always knew Nadal would break back and Novak would be under pressure and make more UFEs (exactly what happened in the 5-5 game of the 3rd set). It was a one-sided match, although maybe not as much as the scoreline indicated.

Great post (y) Thoroughly enjoyed reading that and it was a welcome break from all the discussion about Djokovic's streak :p
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Machan ... in general I don't subscribe to either the weak era or prime/post-prime concept. If you play, the results are what they are whatever the conditions may be. But because you've asked, no I don't agree. I think Federer was pretty much in his prime. He won 4 of the following 6 slams and reached the final in the other 2. Sounds like someone at his very best.

If you don't subscribe to post-prime then Djokovic was at absolute peak when he lost to Nadal. Period.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
In addition to all of this, Novak showed up totally spent after 5 setter in the semis. As he gets older, he won't have the stamina like he had in 2012 AO finals. No way. On the other hand, Nadal came pumped and ready to take the title. Novak was weak. Nadal was strong. Novak lost it before it even started. He lost it in his body initially and then in his head. I was hoping Novak could fight but he made so many errors and hit net so many times. Kind of dissapointing.

Totally agree.

Novak's body was beat up from the Cincinatti's, USO's and Rome's, while Rafa timed his peak like a god. He played probably his best match of these last 2 years.

Then came the 5 sets with Tsitsipas and it simply broke the camel's back.

Novak had nothing for the final.
 
I’m still trying to analyze what happened and am looking just at the first set, for several reasons. It was the most lopsided and it was the first one, setting the stage for the beat down. The score is 6-0, complete domination. But if you look at it game by game it was a much closer set. What the numbers show is that Novak had multiple chances to change the result but failed every time. This is very different from both what Nadal experienced in the AO19 final and what Fed experienced in the FO08 final.

Novak’s opportunities

Start with Novak’s serve. In the first game Novak gets broken from 40:15. In the fifth game he gets broken from 40:0. This is very uncharacteristic. If his serve was simply crappy how did he end with 2 and 3 game points?

Now look at his return game. Novak had 3 bps that he couldn’t convert. But that wasn’t a fluke. It’s not like Nadal was winning his other games to love. In only the final game of the set did Nadal win his serve comfortably, in the other two Novak reached at least 40:40. In the second game Nadal was serving 40:15 and Novak won the next two points, so he was applying pressure.

So in the first set Novak had 3 games he could have won if only one point had gone differently. And he had multiple opportunities. He had 2 game points in the first game, 3 break points in the fourth game and another 3 game points in the fifth game. That’s a total of 8 opportunities to have at least won one game. He missed them all.

Nadal won 32 points in the first set and Novak only 19. But had just 3 points gone differently the score would have been 3-3.

Comparison with AO19 and FO08

Compare these results with the first set of the AO19 final. It’s a very different story. In that set Novak served 5 times and won four of those games to love and in the fifth Nadal only won one point. Novak breaks Nadal once, has BP in another game and reaches 30:30 in a third.

What this means is that in the set that Novak lost 6-0 he had multiple chances to turn that around whereas in the set that Nadal lost 6-3 he never had any chance at all. Novak simply lost every single key point he played in that set. And that’s what I find so strange. It’s not like him at all.

Another comparison is with FO08. Look at the set Federer lost 6-0, same as Novak on Sunday. There is a great difference when you dig into the numbers. In that set Fed never had any chance against Nadal’s serve. Nadal won 2 of his 3 service games in that set to love and in the third service game kept Federer to 30:30. In his own service games Federer only had one game point, compared to Novak having 5 game points across two games. Just as Nadal in the first set of AO19 Federer never came even close to changing the results

Thoughts?

What do you all think? To keep the analysis simple I’m looking at just one set. I can understand a set where Novak is simply steamrolled and has no chances. That’s what happened to Nadal in AO19 and to Fed in FO08 in the sets analyzed above. But Novak wasn’t steamrolled. He had plenty of opportunities for a different result. He just lost them all.
So djokovic played as well as he could and lost 6-0. Good to know.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Because you, and others here, are making a very strong claim and so it should be accompanied by equally strong evidence. When I point out that Novak's 40 match streak at 33 is unique and that neither Nadal nor Fed (fellow co-GOATs) managed something like that at the same age you (and others) claim that that is a reflection of the weak players Novak faced. Since the posters that are making this claim are all Fedal fans it raises the question of whether what you see as "observation and critical thinking" is simply supporting your guy. ;)

So where is the evidence supporting this claim? Did the field weaken so significantly in just one year (Remember that Nadal's equivalent season is 2019)? Fed's equivalent season was 2014 and if you look at his first 40 matches the first loss is against Hewitt, ranked #60 at the time. Are you arguing that that Hewitt was stronger than any player Novak faced since last December (when his "streak" started)?

I didn't claim 33 year old Fed or Nadal would post similar results if you plucked them from one period and shoved them in 2020. The two aren't mutally exclusive, Djokovic can have achieved something that Fedal wouldn't have in the same position - but the achievement itself can also be due (in part) to the weakness of the field. If you weren't so defensive maybe you'd be able to get that...
 
Novak never fought like Nadal for EVERY single point but lately he's been even more easy going about it. He'll just let the game or even a break slip without digging in much. Or he'll opt for a drop shot without building a point properly, in situations when clutch play would be appropriate approach. Or he'll pull the trigger and go for low % shot to avoid a rally. Kind of taking easy way out. You just can't play a slam final against an elite opponent like that, especially against Nadal in FO final.

He let all those close games go and the set with them, without giving his all. Even in the 3rd set, after fighting back, he gave up completely in the end. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is Ivanisevic's influence. Think he's slowly making Novak mentally weaker.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I didn't claim 33 year old Fed or Nadal would post similar results if you plucked them from one period and shoved them in 2020. The two aren't mutally exclusive, Djokovic can have achieved something that Fedal wouldn't have in the same position - but the achievement itself can also be due (in part) to the weakness of the field. If you weren't so defensive maybe you'd be able to get that...
Since no other player (AFAIK) in the Open Era has had a similar streak at this age to argue that the explanation is due to a weak field without providing the least bit of evidence for this sounds like the purpose is simply to diminish what Novak has done.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
Totally agree.

Novak's body was beat up from the Cincinatti's, USO's and Rome's, while Rafa timed his peak like a god. He played probably his best match of these last 2 years.

Then came the 5 sets with Tsitsipas and it simply broke the camel's back.

Novak had nothing for the final.
This claim simply doesn't stand up to logic or scrutiny.

Firstly, Djokovic's schedule leading up to the French Open was literally perfect.
1 week in Cincy (@ USO). Week break. 1 week in USO. Week break. 1 week in Rome. Week break. Start French Open.

I think if he had played the fortnight at USO, one could argue he would be tired, but his early exit meant he had the 1 week on/off combo which is an athlete's dream.
As for the '5 sets' vs Tsitsipas, it was only 45 minutes longer than Nadal's semi vs Schwawrtzmann. I've looked up the stats and Nadal's semi had more 9+ shot rallies (67-62) than Djokovic's semi, despite being shorter. So the gap in energy expended in the two semis is negligible.
Meanwhile, Djokovic was far fitter than Tsitsi in the 5th set, and even said he had confidence heading into the fifth because he felt he was fitter. Hardly the words of a man fatigued by his schedule.

I'm afraid to say that after making an arrogant prediction which turned out to be completely wrong, you are resorting to sore excuses.
 
These Novak fans wouldn't be making similar in depth analyses about peak Djokovic was much older Fed at uso 2011,2015; Wimbledon 2019 etc. I wonder why...
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
I'm afraid to say that after making an arrogant prediction which turned out to be completely wrong, you are resorting to sore excuses.

How anticipating a win by Novak makes it arrogant ?

Hantuchova predicted 51% in favor of Novak; was she being arrogant ?

The other tennis forum had 52% members in favor of Novak; were they all arrogant ?

And by the way, i did say Rafa was going to raise his level for the final, but i anticipated Novak would too, which he totally failed at.

We know why now.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
These Novak fans wouldn't be making similar in depth analyses about peak Djokovic was much older Fed at uso 2011,2015; Wimbledon 2019 etc. I wonder why...

Meh. Being the GOAT requires beating the best of the best past your best by date, especially on your best surface. That’s also Novak’s worst surface, mind you.

Fed also has no excuse for that massive choke job at W 2020. Sorry mate.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
How anticipating a win by Novak makes it arrogant ?

Hantuchova predicted 51% in favor of Novak; was she being arrogant ?

The other tennis forum had 52% members in favor of Novak; were they all arrogant ?

And by the way, i did say Rafa was going to raise his level for the final, but i anticipated Novak would too, which he totally failed at.

We know why now.
You were humiliated, as were many others.

Now why not rebut my argument where I debunked your sore loser 'tired' excuse ?
 
Meh. Being the GOAT requires beating the best of the best past your best by date, especially on your best surface. That’s also Novak’s worst surface, mind you.

Fed also has no excuse for that massive choke job at W 2020. Sorry mate.
Sure. I'll keep that in mind when Thiem beats Nole 6-0 in 2023..

For the record there was no Wimbledon in 2020 but I wouldn't expect you to know that..
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Sure. I'll keep that in mind when Thiem beats Nole 6-0 in 2023..

For the record there was no Wimbledon in 2020 but I wouldn't expect you to know that..

Salt is real. OK OK. Wimbledon 19.

Dont see Thiem consistently beating Novak off of clay until Novak retires, but alright.
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
Team Nadal came up with a great game plan against Djokovic and Rafa executed it superbly for two sets.

Djokovic had a great seasons but it seems that his team didn't come up with ways to counter Nadal. It seems that Djokovic adjusted more in the third set but could not overcome the combi of strategy+execution.

I don't like to much focus on stats but this statement by Goran seems pretty much telling:

Also, Ivanisevic is not too keen on advanced statistics. He states that the stats do have a place in tennis but that the player has to rely on his instinct. Craig O’Shannessy, renowned tennis analyst, was a part of Team Djokovic from 2017-2019, but both of Novak‘s coaches — Vajda and Ivanisevic — agreed that there was too much information.

“They talk for three hours, about where that guy just served three years ago,” Ivanisevic noted. “Who cares? Too much information; in the end the players forget what they need to do and Novak needs to focus on his game. I have nothing against Craig and statistics are important. Marian and go over it and then we present the filtered information to Novak. That is enough.”

Almost too fitting.
 
D

Deleted member 770948

Guest
I love how close that bagel was, because usually bagels are boring because the quality is poor at one end, but this was high quality at both ends.
Both guys were hitting the cover off the ball, just that Nadal combined power with finesse and strategy.
Incredible entertainment.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Anyway, why not attempt to defend your argument?

Because there's no argument.

I'm right and you're wrong.

Novak can't play at the same pace he used to and to compensate he introduced the drop shot to end points quicker and conserve energy.

Against Kachanov and Tsitsipas he made a TON of drop shots.

He can't spend the same energy as before over a 5 set match. Rafa could yesterday. Even at 34. That's what decided it.

A blind man would recognize that, but you're one of a kind apparently.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I love how close that bagel was, because usually bagels are boring because the quality is poor at one end, but this was high quality at both ends.
Both guys were hitting the cover off the ball, just that Nadal combined power with finesse and strategy.
Incredible entertainment.
Well, not so entertaining as a Novak fan :eek: :eek:
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
you also have to love it if you're not a hypocrite.

Otha! LOL machi, are you out of your mind? I don't insist that you accept my opinion as fact. Why would you demand such a thing? Omala! :D
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Otha! LOL machi, are you out of your mind? I don't insist that you accept my opinion as fact. Why would you demand such a thing? Omala! :D

It's not about accepting, it's about being consistent. Either you believe in peak, post-prime, etc, or you don't. IF you don't as you claim, then according to you Djokovici was peak, end of story. Be consistent.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
It's not about accepting, it's about being consistent. Either you believe in peak, post-prime, etc, or you don't. IF you don't as you claim, then according to you Djokovici was peak, end of story. Be consistent.

Machan, are we gonna keep at this all day & night? :unsure: Just what difference does it make whether he was peak or not? Does the ATP award extra points for going on a win streak while off-peak? Alright, he was peak Djokovic. Happy now? :rolleyes: OTHA!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Since no other player (AFAIK) in the Open Era has had a similar streak at this age to argue that the explanation is due to a weak field without providing the least bit of evidence for this sounds like the purpose is simply to diminish what Novak has done.

Tennis is a zero sum game, it can always be argued both ways. If you want to be stubborn and obtuse then carry on. Djokovic fans must be the only group in the world that tries to separate actual observation from evaluation.
 

Eren

Professional
Here is my analysis of the first set.

Everyone should learn from Federer. If Nadal decides to play at RG, just give up and don´t even participate since you don´t stand a chance.
 
Top