Congrats to Djokovic on his amazing streak: he won one grand slam in a row!!

Tony48

Legend
Amazing!!

Now he will go back to being the solid, unremarkable spiritual no. 3 and Nadal's whipping boy in grand slam matches. Hell, maybe even Feds whipping boy before Fed retires.

Let him try as hard as he wants in lower level tournaments including masters - we all know they have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on grand slam matches. And we all know that grand slams are ALL that counts in tennis.

Murray beats Fedal quite routinely in masters matches, but come grand slam time, the latter two just turn it up to a level he simply doesn't have and he gets spanked. Though Djokovic is infinitely better than Murray - he doesn't have that level either. Hence in slams he can only beat an age-crippled Fed and not even consistently.

I would be surprised if he ended his career with more than 2 slams.

Change your name. It's an insult to actual fans.
 

Six.One.Tour.90FAN

Professional
what point am I missing?

Let's discount ALL non-grand slam matches entirely.

Djokovic has NEVER beaten Nadal in a slam and has ONLY managed to beat a Federer who is at the moment absolutely crippled by old age. And he doesn't even beat this old man all the time as evidenced by the FO.

People say that if Djokovic could get to a final with Nadal he'd win. Firstly, I dispute that: Djokovic would get his ass handed to him as he's never beaten Nadal in a slam before. Secondly, he may never even get that chance because of Federer who TWENTY NINE for godssakes, Djokovic should be routining him but at the moment can't even seem to deal with him.

129085017794048858.jpg


90
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
so what? DH owns rafa, that's the truth and so does Davydenko. anything else? you are bitter as always.

funny that you keep acusing me of being bitter where it's you who calls Serbs "Balkan Trash" not to mention several other racist remarks... and yet i'm the bitter one!!! rrrrrigggghhhhhtttt....
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
This is stupid. First the idea that Djokovic couldn't win because he never has won a slam meeting with Nadal before. Using that logic, nothing would ever happen at all. Everything has a first time. Before this year Djokovic hadn't beaten Nadal in a final or on clay. Now he's done the first, 4 times and the second twice.

Nadal didn't play great at the French Open. He looked below his best, only he had in the final a guy even more below his best. Federer is still capable of playing great but he doesn't have the consistancy to trouble beat Nadal at RG. If he was as consistant as he was in 2006, then maybe against the under par Nadal we wittnessed yes. Djokovic in prime form could have definitely won, because nadal was not as clinical as previous years and really gave Federer chances to get back into the match. Djoko would have taken them if he was playing the way he has been most of the year.

Secondly, Federer is past his best but he can have flashes of form. He's not in a zimmer frame because he's 29.

Didn't a 31 year old Agassi beat Federer at the US Open in 2001 - 6-1 6-2 6-4?
 
This is stupid. First the idea that Djokovic couldn't win because he never has won a slam meeting with Nadal before. Using that logic, nothing would ever happen at all. Everything has a first time. Before this year Djokovic hadn't beaten Nadal in a final or on clay. Now he's done the first, 4 times and the second twice.

Nadal didn't play great at the French Open. He looked below his best, only he had in the final a guy even more below his best. Federer is still capable of playing great but he doesn't have the consistancy to trouble beat Nadal at RG. If he was as consistant as he was in 2006, then maybe against the under par Nadal we wittnessed yes. Djokovic in prime form could have definitely won, because nadal was not as clinical as previous years and really gave Federer chances to get back into the match. Djoko would have taken them if he was playing the way he has been most of the year.

Secondly, Federer is past his best but he can have flashes of form. He's not in a zimmer frame because he's 29.

Didn't a 31 year old Agassi beat Federer at the US Open in 2001 - 6-1 6-2 6-4?

Yeh, way to go with that hippie ideology. Insurance companies base their premiums solely on past records. History repeats itself. You can't change who you are.

Best example is Murray. He is a born loser, so it doesn't matter how cakewalk of a draw he is given - he WILL find a way to lose.

But other than that, Djokovic has always been Nadal's pigeon in a slam and Nadal just needs to show up to win.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yeh, way to go with that hippie ideology. Insurance companies base their premiums solely on past records. History repeats itself. You can't change who you are.

Best example is Murray. He is a born loser, so it doesn't matter how cakewalk of a draw he is given - he WILL find a way to lose.

But other than that, Djokovic has always been Nadal's pigeon in a slam and Nadal just needs to show up to win.

It's not Hippie idealogy, it's fact.

This is nothing to do with changing who you are.

I repeat, Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in any final. Ever. He was his pidgeon in finals. So he should have lost the last 4 finals they played, right? News for you, he didn't. He never beat Nadal on clay. Should have lost. He didn't.

In 2006 Federer had never lost a slam final. At the Frech Open...he lost.

Soderling never beat Federer at a slam in 4 attempts at a slam, but that didn't matter at last years RG did it?

Murray lost the first 2 slam meetings to Nadal but then beat him. If Murray can beat Nadal in a slam, Djokovic can.

Your idea that you only have to turn up is laughable. I suppose you pray to gods and sacrifice cattle, and believe it's written in the stars, and not actually decided by 2 men on a tennis court.

You see insurance companies sometimes have to pay out. :)
 
It's not Hippie idealogy, it's fact.

This is nothing to do with changing who you are.

I repeat, Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in any final. Ever. He was his pidgeon in finals. So he should have lost the last 4 finals they played, right? News for you, he didn't. He never beat Nadal on clay. Should have lost. He didn't.

In 2006 Federer had never lost a slam final. At the Frech Open...he lost.

Soderling never beat Federer at a slam in 4 attempts at a slam, but that didn't matter at last years RG did it?

Murray lost the first 2 slam meetings to Nadal but then beat him. If Murray can beat Nadal in a slam, Djokovic can.

Your idea that you only have to turn up is laughable. I suppose you pray to gods and sacrifice cattle, and believe it's written in the stars, and not actually decided by 2 men on a tennis court.

You see insurance companies sometimes have to pay out. :)

Dude, just go with the majority stat - it would make your life easier if you stopped trying to be quirky.

Nadal ranked no. 1. Djokovic ranked no. 2. Therefore, when no. 1 plays no. 2, no. 1 WINS!! It's that simple.

Or, if you're a gambling man, who is odds on favorite for Wimbledon? And this years US Open? And next year's Australian? And next year's French? And Wimbledon? And so on?

Nadal.

That's right, so you're an idiot if you think someone other than Nadal will win those as it implies you think you know better than those whose JOB it is to sit around and use various mathematical formulas to conclude who the winner of those tournaments will be.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Dude, just go with the majority stat - it would make your life easier if you stopped trying to be quirky.

Nadal ranked no. 1. Djokovic ranked no. 2. Therefore, when no. 1 plays no. 2, no. 1 WINS!! It's that simple.

Or, if you're a gambling man, who is odds on favorite for Wimbledon? And this years US Open? And next year's Australian? And next year's French? And Wimbledon? And so on?

Nadal.

That's right, so you're an idiot if you think someone other than Nadal will win those as it implies you think you know better than those whose JOB it is to sit around and use various mathematical formulas to conclude who the winner of those tournaments will be.

How many times did Number 2 Nadal beat Number 1 Federer?

Oh yeah say Nadal get's injured and pulls out sometime before the final, he will be number 2 and Djokovic number 1. Obviously then Djokovic will win all further matches?

Is it your job to be an moron? You're doing it well. You deserve a payrise.
 
Well, at least it contains a Slam unlike McEnroe's record and had Tipsarevic and Fognini not pulled out during the run, he would have passed Mac's start of the season record, which he deserved to do tbh, given he would have won both of those comfortably bar a minor miracle. Also to those comparing Murray/Nadal GS matches to Djokovic/Fed, I think Djokovic's wins are more impressive. Prior to 2010 Nadal has notoriously played rubbish(for his standards) at the USO, 2008 being no different imo. Just the previous year he lost to Ferrer, and a few other lesser players in the years before that. I thought he played very poor in that 08 semi too, very defensive and weary( any of the top players will beat him in that sort of mood). AO 10 he retired injured. Maybe it's just me but I found Djok's wins over Fed in GS's a bit more impressive.
 

Tony48

Legend
Amazing!!

Now he will go back to being the solid, unremarkable spiritual no. 3 and Nadal's whipping boy in grand slam matches. Hell, maybe even Feds whipping boy before Fed retires.

Let him try as hard as he wants in lower level tournaments including masters - we all know they have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on grand slam matches. And we all know that grand slams are ALL that counts in tennis.

Murray beats Fedal quite routinely in masters matches, but come grand slam time, the latter two just turn it up to a level he simply doesn't have and he gets spanked. Though Djokovic is infinitely better than Murray - he doesn't have that level either. Hence in slams he can only beat an age-crippled Fed and not even consistently.

I would be surprised if he ended his career with more than 2 slams.

Quoted for posterity :)
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
.

Nadal ranked no. 1. Djokovic ranked no. 2. Therefore, when no. 1 plays no. 2, no. 1 WINS!! It's that simple.

Or, if you're a gambling man, who is odds on favorite for Wimbledon? And this years US Open? And next year's Australian? And next year's French? And Wimbledon? And so on?

Nadal.

That's right, so you're an idiot if you think someone other than Nadal will win those as it implies you think you know better than those whose JOB it is to sit around and use various mathematical formulas to conclude who the winner of those tournaments will be.


this crazy cat was trying to joke and be funny. At least I hope so...
 
Top