Djokovic (FO 2016) vs Nadal (FO 2017)

[tennis2017]

It was weak, but still tougher than Djokovic's joke of a draw in 2016.

Djokovic beat Nadal in Paris 2015 when Nadal was losing to almost everyone even fognini

 

[tennis2017]

It would have been a semi, and I think Djokovic mentally had Nadal's number at that point. 2017 I give to Nadal without a doubt. 2016 Djokovic v 2016 Nadal...I was confident Djokovic would take him down, being a semi was the perfect slot.

It never happened we can only theorise on the outcome but one thing is certain Nadal 10 out of 10 finals Paris will never be broken either will Federer 8 out of 11 wins Wimbledon these records will stand the test of time
What record has Djokovic got in comparison

 

[Charlie]

It never happened we can only theorise on the outcome but one thing is certain Nadal 10 out of 10 finals Paris will never be broken either will Federer 8 out of 11 wins Wimbledon these records will stand the test of time
What record has Djokovic got in comparison

Holding all Majors and WTF at once.
6/6 in AO finals.

Decent player, this Djokovic.

 

[ibbi]

Depends on the weather.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It never happened we can only theorise on the outcome but one thing is certain Nadal 10 out of 10 finals Paris will never be broken either will Federer 8 out of 11 wins Wimbledon these records will stand the test of time
What record has Djokovic got in comparison

Are you trying to play the My Dad is better than Your Dad game with me?

 

[Sirius Black]

Djokovic beat Nadal in Paris 2015 when Nadal was losing to almost everyone even fognini

Nadal was still losing to almost everyone in 2016

 

[Newcomer]

This should refresh your memory.
Nadal playing as well as he could that day and still losing in straights.
Djokovic was playing much better at RG.

Nadal was NOT playing as well as he could. He choked both sets, and choked HARD. And also, people should stop comparing Rome (which should be called a hardcourt tournament, this surface is not clay) to RG with real clay courts.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic was hardly uber-confident or playing well in the 1st set in the RG 2016. in fact, it looked like it was going to be the same old story of djokovic under-performing at RG (esp. compared to clay masters) in that 1st set. But Murray's level dipped considerably after that and he let djokovic off the hook. Then djokovic became more confident and played really well after that.

and very unlikely that this goes 5 sets, given how well nadal was playing in the 17 RG final plus the above.

most probable result is nadal in 4 sets.

Except it wasn't. Djokovic had a slow start and Murray came out firing. Then in the second set he calmed himself and played brilliantly from that point on to 5-2 in the 4th. He didn't let Djokovic off the hook. Djokovic took the match from him with his high level of play where he knows his best will beat Murray's best, especially on clay. I find it odd that Murray supposedly "let Djokovic off the hook" when he had only beaten Djokovic on clay for the first time a couple of weeks before that in Rome thanks to Djokovic having long tough matches against Nadal and Nishikori, and Murray cruising through on a cakewalk. Also, Murray had spent an extra 5 hours on court leading up to the RG final which was a clear advantage for Djokovic who had the fresher legs, and that showed as Murray looked dreary and tired the longer the match went on.

It may be very unlikely for other players but it isn't very unlikely for Djokovic to push Nadal to 5 sets, considering how he was hitting the ball in 2016 RG, how he matches up against him even on clay, and considering he has done it before to a Nadal who was a bit faster and a better defense to offense player.

 

[KINGROGER]

Probably Djokovic would win. I'd be more confident if it was 2011-2014 Nole.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal was NOT playing as well as he could. He choked both sets, and choked HARD. And also, people should stop comparing Rome (which should be called a hardcourt tournament, this surface is not clay) to RG with real clay courts.

What? There is a reason why Rome's schedule was moved around...to make players adjust to the conditions at RG better.

 

[abmk]

Except it wasn't. Djokovic had a slow start and Murray came out firing. Then in the second set he calmed himself and played brilliantly from that point on to 5-2 in the 4th. He didn't let Djokovic off the hook. Djokovic took the match from him with his high level of play where he knows his best will beat Murray's best, especially on clay. I find it odd that Murray supposedly "let Djokovic off the hook" when he had only beaten Djokovic on clay for the first time a couple of weeks before that in Rome thanks to Djokovic having long tough matches against Nadal and Nishikori, and Murray cruising through on a cakewalk. Also, Murray had spent an extra 5 hours on court leading up to the RG final which was a clear advantage for Djokovic who had the fresher legs, and that showed as Murray looked dreary and tired the longer the match went on.

It may be very unlikely for other players but it isn't very unlikely for Djokovic to push Nadal to 5 sets, considering how he was hitting the ball in 2016 RG, how he matches up against him even on clay, and considering he has done it before to a Nadal who was a bit faster and a better defense to offense player.

When I say murray let djokovic off the hook, I meant he offered very little resistance to Djokovic getting his confidence/play back, by playing well below par. To pretend its all djokovic is just bias. Yes, djoko's best on clay is quite clearly than Murray's, but he was under the pressure of finally winning Rg/completing the career GS/NCYGS.

Murray didn't even put him under pressure after the 1st set, because he played below par. The fatigue excuse isn't even realistic just after one set, maybe after 2 sets and a bit, 2 hrs or so. He did go to 5 sets in first 2 rounds, but the lost 1 set in the next 4 rounds combined Iirc. It was just plain old Murray under-performing in a slam final.

Credit to Djokovic for raising his level from 2nd set onwards and playing like he should have, but if murray had kept up his level from the 1st set, it'd have been very interesting to see how things would have unfolded.

Now, I can assure you , I meant djokovic getting to 5 sets vs 2017 final Nadal was very unlikely. After, the first 4-5 games, Nadal was too good in the final. His play for the whole stretch from then on till the end was like the 5th set of RG 13 after being a break down.

Nadal was a bit better in 13 Cc season than in 17 season, but his RG 17 final perf was was as good as anything he produced in that 2013 season, if not a tad better. (5th set vs djoko, Rome SF/F vs Berdych/Federer)

Djoko 16 would have a chance of taking 17 nadal to 5 in qf/SF(and a pretty decent chance if you ask me ), but vs the Nadal who showed up in the final ? Very tiny chance.
And remember no one has pushed Nadal to 5 sets in a RG final.

Djoko was better in the QF/SF of RG 16 than in the final. Reverse for Rafa in 17.

 

[TheAssassin]

Nadal was NOT playing as well as he could. He choked both sets, and choked HARD. And also, people should stop comparing Rome (which should be called a hardcourt tournament, this surface is not clay) to RG with real clay courts.

When Nadal wins a tournament seven times, it should never be called a hard court tournament.

 

[Incognito]

This should refresh your memory.
Nadal playing as well as he could that day and still losing in straights.
Djokovic was playing much better at RG.

Just like how Thiem crushed Nadal in Rome only to get beaten to a pulp at RG. And how many times has djokovic beaten Nadal at those masters but end up losing to Nadal at RG?

 

[existential dread]

When Nadal wins a tournament seven times, it should never be called a hard court tournament.

Not to mention he successfully defended the title 4 times.

 

[TheAssassin]

Just like how Thiem crushed Nadal in Rome only to get beaten to a pulp at RG. And how many times has djokovic beaten Nadal at those masters but end up losing to Nadal at RG?

Last year Nadal did his non-RG tradition of not reaching his big rivals at RG as well. Not cool.

 

[Incognito]

Last year Nadal did his non-RG tradition of not reaching his big rivals at RG as well. Not cool.

He got injured last year, which was good for the rivals.

 

[abmk]

Nadal was NOT playing as well as he could. He choked both sets, and choked HARD. And also, people should stop comparing Rome (which should be called a hardcourt tournament, this surface is not clay) to RG with real clay courts.

that's hilarious. Rome is the closest CC masters to RG.
and there's no way nadal would win a HC tournament 7 times and federer 0.

its just trolling from your side cos' djokovic has won Rome 4 times.

 

[TheAssassin]

He got injured last year, which was good for the rivals.

Sure, because he was having an amazing 2016 prior to RG, wasn't he?

 

[metsman]

Except it wasn't. Djokovic had a slow start and Murray came out firing. Then in the second set he calmed himself and played brilliantly from that point on to 5-2 in the 4th. He didn't let Djokovic off the hook. Djokovic took the match from him with his high level of play where he knows his best will beat Murray's best, especially on clay. I find it odd that Murray supposedly "let Djokovic off the hook" when he had only beaten Djokovic on clay for the first time a couple of weeks before that in Rome thanks to Djokovic having long tough matches against Nadal and Nishikori, and Murray cruising through on a cakewalk. Also, Murray had spent an extra 5 hours on court leading up to the RG final which was a clear advantage for Djokovic who had the fresher legs, and that showed as Murray looked dreary and tired the longer the match went on.

It may be very unlikely for other players but it isn't very unlikely for Djokovic to push Nadal to 5 sets, considering how he was hitting the ball in 2016 RG, how he matches up against him even on clay, and considering he has done it before to a Nadal who was a bit faster and a better defense to offense player.

no one was saying Murray should beat Djoker but his performance the last 3 sets was really pretty poor, served under 50% 11 winners 38 errors. He could have put up more of a fight.

 

[Incognito]

Sure, because he was having an amazing 2016 prior to RG, wasn't he?

True, one can never recover from a slump

 

[abmk]

Sure, because he was having an amazing 2016 prior to RG, wasn't he?

all 3 of djokovic, murray, nadal had similar performances in clay masters in 2016 -- winning one each and making another final.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Just like how Thiem crushed Nadal in Rome only to get beaten to a pulp at RG. And how many times has djokovic beaten Nadal at those masters but end up losing to Nadal at RG?

Slay.

 

[Sport]

Come on! Give Nadal more credit than that. I actually think The Mummy beats Earth's Mightiest Warrior.

Nadal's eyebrow though haha.

 

[TheAssassin]

all 3 of djokovic, murray, nadal had similar performances in clay masters in 2016 -- winning one each and making another final.

Nadal didn't make another Masters final, but yes, I agree with the rest. Very comparable.

I just think Nadal wouldn't have beaten Djokovic at RG that year if they met, probably more because of what happened in their most recent duels than because of Djokovic's own level at that tournament.

 

[abmk]

Nadal didn't make another Masters final, but yes, I agree with the rest. Very comparable.

I just think Nadal wouldn't have beaten Djokovic at RG that year if they met, more because of what happened in their most recent duels than because of Djokovic's own level at that tournament.

oh, yeah, it was SF at madrid(&QF at rome) from nadal.

as far as your point goes, its a fair view point. But RG is quite a bit different from clay masters.
Djoko would've been favoured, but nadal would definitely have more than a decent shot.

 

[Newcomer]

What? There is a reason why Rome's schedule was moved around...to make players adjust to the conditions at RG better.

Are you serious? The bounce in Rome is lower than on 90% of the hardcourts. No surprise big hitters like this tournament very much. Look how many players owned Nadal there, but couldn't do that 2 weeks later in RG where the bounce is like 5 times higher.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Are you serious? The bounce in Rome is lower than on 90% of the hardcourts. No surprise big hitters like this tournament very much. Look how many players owned Nadal there, but couldn't do that 2 weeks later in RG where the bounce is like 5 times higher.

It is due to the lack of space behind the court in Rome, that hurts Nadal in Rome, not the actual surface. He has won this title 7 times, and it has taken some crazy performances from Djokovic to stop him on most occasions. Nadal cannot move as freely on the court as he would like, so more players can hit through him here, but it is still very much a good clay court that is ideal before RG.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

uh probably Nadal tbh

 

[kandamrgam]

And sure, I'm REAL impressed by Murray's year (beating LOLworthy competition for 6 months and still lost to Nishikori at the USO).

50 years later, one would still see Sabratha debating Hewitt vs Murray on these forums..

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[Daniel Johnson]

Nadal

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[abmk]

Are you serious? The bounce in Rome is lower than on 90% of the hardcourts. No surprise big hitters like this tournament very much. Look how many players owned Nadal there, but couldn't do that 2 weeks later in RG where the bounce is like 5 times higher.

yes, I agree.
Soderling owned Nadal at Rome in 2009 winning a grand total of 1 game in 2 sets and then got owned by nadal in RG 2009. oops.

who are these so many players who owned nadal at rome ?

he won in 05 beating coria, won in 06 beating federer, won in 07 beating gonzalez, lost in 08 to ferrero (had blisters), won in 09 beating djokovic, won in 10 beating ferrer, l to djokovic in 11, beat djokovic in 12, beat federer in 13, l to djokovic in 14, l to stan in 15, l to djokovic in 16

he's 49-5 at Rome, 3 of those losses coming to djokovic, 1 to ferrero (had blisters), and 1 to stan in 15 when he was losing to everyone and his dog on clay.

so where is this big mythical list of players who owned nadal at Rome ?


http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-b...dal&f=ACareerqqB1DRome_Mastersqq&view=singles

Federer has 0 titles at Rome, that should also give you a clue.

Edit : Thiem beat him this year at Rome, but that's just one instance, when nadal wasn't losing to everyone else and was fit. Plus nadal had already won 3 CC titles before rome - barca, madrid and MC. didn't want to peak at rome and wanted o peak at RG.

 

[Newcomer]

It is due to the lack of space behind the court in Rome, that hurts Nadal in Rome, not the actual surface. He has won this title 7 times, and it has taken some crazy performances from Djokovic to stop him on most occasions. Nadal cannot move as freely on the court as he would like, so more players can hit through him here, but it is still very much a good clay court that is ideal before RG.

Djokovic is always hitting bombs against Nadal in their Rome matches. He can't even HOPE to do that in RG. There he has to try for real. Maybe Nadal won it 7 times, but no doubt it's a much worse surface for him than Monte Carlo or RG. In the last 3 years he didn't even reach a semifinal there.

 

[Newcomer]

yes, I agree.
Soderling owned Nadal at Rome in 2009 winning a grand total of 1 game in 2 sets and then got owned by nadal in RG 2009. oops.

who are these so many players who owned nadal at rome ?

he won in 05 beating coria, won in 06 beating federer, won in 07 beating gonzalez, lost in 08 to ferrero (had blisters), won in 09 beating djokovic, won in 10 beating ferrer, l to djokovic in 11, beat djokovic in 12, beat federer in 13, l to djokovic in 14, l to stan in 15, l to djokovic in 16

he's 49-5 at Rome, 3 of those losses coming to djokovic, 1 to ferrero (had blisters), and 1 to stan in 15 when he was losing to everyone and his dog on clay.

so where is this big mythical list of players who owned nadal at Rome ?


http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-b...dal&f=ACareerqqB1DRome_Mastersqq&view=singles

Federer has 0 titles at Rome, that should also give you a clue.

Edit : Thiem beat him this year at Rome, but that's just one instance, when nadal wasn't losing to everyone else and was fit. Plus nadal had already won 3 CC titles before rome - barca, madrid and MC. didn't want to peak at rome and wanted o peak at RG.

He always had big problems in Rome. Federer actually was closer to beating him there than ever in RG. Leave alone about Djokovic, the difference in their matchup in these 2 tournaments is VERY big.

 

[TheAssassin]

He always had big problems in Rome. Federer actually was closer to beating him there than ever in RG. Leave alone about Djokovic, the difference in their matchup in these 2 tournaments is VERY big.

You're unbelievable. What if Nadal loses at next two RGs, will you be saying he always had problems in Paris?

 

[abmk]

He always had big problems in Rome. Federer actually was closer to beating him there than ever in RG. Leave alone about Djokovic, the difference in their matchup in these 2 tournaments is VERY big.

lol, you are just sprouting absolute bullcrap over here. You just got owned big time.
One big hitter have beaten him at each place considering all years where he was playing at a good enough level on clay. ( RG 09, Rome 17)

its ludicrous to think that nadal would win something that came within a country mile of a HC 7 times ( his highest is 3 - at IW). and when he is clearly the record holder at rome with 7 titles (next highest is djokovic at 4 if I not mistaken).

federer has 0 titles at Rome
He put in one high quality performance in the 4 finals that he's been there- that was the Rome 2006 final vs Nadal, where federer played at his very best and nadal was brilliant as well.

Nadal played better in the Rome 06 final than he did in the RG 06 final, by a distance. Its just that federer was considerably worse in the RG final compared to the Rome final. federer got beaten badly in their other Rome encounter in 13, winning only 4 games.

As far as djokovic is concerned, he is just plain better in Bo3 on clay than in Bo5 and Rome is his favorite masters ( even ahead of Madrid which is actually faster than Rome and closer to a HC than Rome is )

Nadal is better at RG than than at Rome, but the difference isn't that big and certainly less compared to djokovic's difference the other way around.

You just can't deal with the fact that djokovic has beat him him thrice at Rome.
Deal with it and stop sprouting absolute rubbish.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Rafa - I think Djoker 15 was in better form, he just bumped into Stanimal who is hard for anyone to stop when he wakes up

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk

Djoker 15 was primed to win it, but we all saw what happened as the Stanimal beast unleashed in the final.
Nadal destroyed Stanimal this year, but this was not the same monster.
I'd still like to think Djoker 16 would just win this in 5.

 

[Newcomer]

lol, you are just sprouting absolute bullcrap over here. You just got owned big time.
One big hitter have beaten him at each place considering all years where he was playing at a good enough level on clay. ( RG 09, Rome 17)

its ludicrous to think that nadal would win something that came within a country mile of a HC 7 times ( his highest is 3 - at IW). and when he is clearly the record holder at rome with 7 titles (next highest is djokovic at 4 if I not mistaken).

federer has 0 titles at Rome
He put in one high quality performance in the 4 finals that he's been there- that was the Rome 2006 final vs Nadal, where federer played at his very best and nadal was brilliant as well.

Nadal played better in the Rome 06 final than he did in the RG 06 final, by a distance. Its just that federer was considerably worse in the RG final compared to the Rome final. federer got beaten badly in their other Rome encounter in 13, winning only 4 games.

As far as djokovic is concerned, he is just plain better in Bo3 on clay than in Bo5 and Rome is his favorite masters ( even ahead of Madrid which is actually faster than Rome and closer to a HC than Rome is )

Nadal is better at RG than than at Rome, but the difference isn't that big and certainly less compared to djokovic's difference the other way around.

You just can't deal with the fact that djokovic has beat him him thrice at Rome.
Deal with it and stop sprouting absolute rubbish.

Who cares how many times Federer won it? Stop putting him here all the time. He isn't a big hitter. Rome is an ideal surface for ball bashers like Djokovic, Thiem, Zverev, Isner. Nadal won it many times because he is the king of clay, but he was close to losing there even in years like 2005, 2006, 2007. He never won it easy, like RG. For Djokovic on the other hand it is probably the best surface ever. He reached more finals in Rome than anywhere else.

 

[abmk]

Who cares how many times Federer won it? Stop putting him here all the time. He isn't a big hitter. Rome is an ideal surface for ball bashers like Djokovic, Thiem, Zverev, Isner. Nadal won it many times because he is the king of clay, but he was close to losing there even in years like 2005, 2006, 2007. He never won it easy, like RG. For Djokovic on the other hand it is probably the best surface ever. He reached more finals in Rome than anywhere else.

1. djokovic is not a ball basher. You are clueless to call him one.

2. thiem can play well on any kind of clay.

3. federer does go bigger with his serve and fh compared to djokovic. fact that the federer, the HC GOAT hasn't won that tournament or done well there particularly is a clear indication that its nowhere near a HC.

4. nadal wasn't close to losing Rome in 2007. very competitive match vs davydenko yes. but didn't come close to losing.

5. As far as Isner is concerned, he made one SF this year at Rome, big whoop. he is 8-7 at Rome, 2-2 at MC, 9-6 at madrid.
he took nadal to 3 sets in MC in 15 and lost 4-6,4-6 in rome in 15.

6. As far as winning Rome easy goes, nadal won it easy in 09 and 12. Didn't lose a set. Beat djoko in straights both times in the final.
just one TB set vs djoko in 09.
just one TB set vs ferrer in 12.

except for that davydenko match in 07, he won all other matches in easy straight sets (not even going to a TB).
except for the gulbis match in 10 ( that was competitive, but didn't come close to losing) , he won all others in easy straight sets (no TB)

you are just a djokovic hater more so than a nadal fan. can't deal with the fact that djokovic has done so well on Rome on clay, which is the closest Masters to RG.

 

[Jon Snow]

You just can't deal with the fact that djokovic has beat him him thrice at Rome.
Deal with it and stop sprouting absolute rubbish.

We deal with it. I acknowledge Djokovic has beaten Nadal thrice at Rome.

Now you deal with Nadal smashing Djokovic at the grand slam Roland Garros every time Djokovic wins the masters Rome by beating Nadal. Djokovic can have the fake wins on the masters while Nadal beats him and wins the real deal. Deal with it Mr.

 

[Newcomer]

1. djokovic is not a ball basher. You are clueless to call him one.

2. thiem can play well on any kind of clay.

3. federer does go bigger with his serve and fh compared to djokovic. fact that the federer, the HC GOAT hasn't won that tournament or done well there particularly is a clear indication that its nowhere near a HC.

4. nadal wasn't close to losing Rome in 2007. very competitive match vs davydenko yes. but didn't come close to losing.

5. As far as Isner is concerned, he made one SF this year at Rome, big whoop. he is 8-7 at Rome, 2-2 at MC, 9-6 at madrid.
he took nadal to 3 sets in MC in 15 and lost 4-6,4-6 in rome in 15.

6. As far as winning Rome easy goes, nadal won it easy in 09 and 12. Didn't lose a set. Beat djoko in straights both times in the final.
just one TB set vs djoko in 09.
just one TB set vs ferrer in 12.

except for that davydenko match in 07, he won all other matches in easy straight sets (not even going to a TB).
except for the gulbis match in 10 ( that was competitive, but didn't come close to losing) , he won all others in easy straight sets (no TB)

you are just a djokovic hater more so than a nadal fan. can't deal with the fact that djokovic has done so well on Rome on clay, which is the closest Masters to RG.

Keep hating troll. Fact is, your Djokovic can't play in RG like in Rome. Was lucky to win 1 title, didn't really deserve it as well.

 

[abmk]

Keep hating troll. Fact is, your Djokovic can't play in RG like in Rome. Was lucky to win 1 title, didn't really deserve it as well.

you are the troll as is obvious to anyone with a little bit of common sense.

I already said, djokovic is quite clearly better in Bo3 than in Bo5 on clay (i.e Rome than at RG).

you got owned, go and slink back to your djokovic-hating cave.

 

[abmk]

We deal with it. I acknowledge Djokovic has beaten Nadal thrice at Rome.

Now you deal with Nadal smashing Djokovic at the grand slam Roland Garros every time Djokovic wins the masters Rome by beating Nadal. Djokovic can have the fake wins on the masters while Nadal beats him and wins the real deal. Deal with it Mr.

arrogant, clueless nadal obssessed djokovic hating troll.

I'm not a djokovic fan. I don't have to deal with anything.

I was talking to Newcomer who can't deal with djokovic beating nadal at Rome. Get a clue before jumping into the conversation.

 

[Newcomer]

you are the troll.

I already said, djokovic is better in Bo3 than in Bo5 on clay (i.e Rome than at RG).

you got owned, go and slink back to your djokovic-hating cave.

Why is he playing worse in Monte Carlo then?

 

[Jon Snow]

arrogant, clueless nadal obssessed djokovic hating troll.

I'm not a djokovic fan. I don't have to deal with anything.

I was talking to Newcomer who can't deal with djokovic beating nadal at Rome. Get a clue before jumping into the conversation.

It's a pointless conversation

Djokovic beats Nadal at the clay masters. Nadal beats him at the real deal. Deal with those facts Mr

 

[abmk]

Why is he playing worse in Monte Carlo then?

because he likes the conditions at Rome better, its faster than Monte Carlo.
doesn't mean its anywhere near a country mile of a HC.

and mind you has 2 wins at Monte Carlo and 2 more finals.

ok, so now Monte carlo is also close to a HC ?

 

[Newcomer]

because he likes the conditions at Rome better, its faster than Monte Carlo.
doesn't mean its anywhere near a country mile of a HC.

and mind you has 2 wins at Monte Carlo and 2 more finals.

ok, so now Monte carlo is also close to a HC ?

Finally you begin to agree that Rome is not a real clay court.

 

[abmk]

It's a pointless conversation

Djokovic beats Nadal at the clay masters. Nadal beats him at the real deal. Deal with those facts Mr

Like I said, learn to read clueless.

nadal in 4 sets, most probably.

But hey who knows there is a slight chance, he might even get it done in straights ...djoko played a below average first set, then Murray let him off the hook by playing below par tennis and allowed him to get back in it and hit more confidently.
nadal played nervously for the first 4-5 games or so , but picked up after that.
If he gets the first set, he might not let djokovic recover like murray did.

I don't have to deal with anything over here..

you on the other hand need to deal with how to read, how not to be crazy biased.

Its not pointless to the troll Newcomer, whom I've been exposing thoroughly.

 

[TheAssassin]

We deal with it. I acknowledge Djokovic has beaten Nadal thrice at Rome.

Now you deal with Nadal smashing Djokovic at the grand slam Roland Garros every time Djokovic wins the masters Rome by beating Nadal. Djokovic can have the fake wins on the masters while Nadal beats him and wins the real deal. Deal with it Mr.

Contradicting a bit.

Keep hating troll. Fact is, your Djokovic can't play in RG like in Rome. Was lucky to win 1 title, didn't really deserve it as well.

He kept falling just short so many times and he is lucky to win one?! Who deserved to win it last year, was your boy the moral winner again or something?

 

[abmk]

Finally you begin to agree that Rome is not a real clay court.

no, clueless.learn to read "doesn't mean its anywhere near a country mile of a HC."

RG is also faster than Monte Carlo. doesn't mean its anywhere near a HC.

 

[Jon Snow]

Like I said, learn to read clueless.



I don't have to deal with anything over here..

you on the other hand need to deal with how to read, how not to be crazy biased.

Its not pointless to the troll Newcomer, whom I've been exposing thoroughly.

I am simply saying it's pointless to bring out Djokovic 3 Rome wins over Nadal when Nadal beats him where it matters the most - Roland Garros.

You need to stop trying to push this agenda about Djokovic's Rome wins.