Djokovic: I can live with Rafa on clay

[ksbh]

Well done, the ****s paint themselves into corners so often.

They want it every which way, except against their way LOL

Thanks Jackson! My post was intended to simply illustrate how many times the Federer fans have twisted facts to suit their agenda!

There are many "ways" to interpret something. There are not only 3 ways and I hope you realize it.

About point 2 - flawed because it's based on wrong assumptions. Premises: Nadal was injured. Fed was off his prime -> Nadal would deny Federer's slams won that year. Interestingly enough, Nadal has to reach the finals first, even if he is not injured. There is no way of knowing if he would have done that. You just assume it. It is true 2008 was a great year for him, but you can't project it to the next year.
Then, in point 3 you elaborate that it should have been a weak era, if both were there and Fed still won. This argument is probably meant to annoy *******s, but it's incredibly unfair and insulting to Federer, a player who was hyped to be among the best game-wise - Sampras, Laver and Borg when he had just 3-4 Slams. His off game is still enough to keep him in the competition. I really don't see how people try to ignore something very obvious like Federer's game now and then and how it is harder for him to be consistently good enough and how he is a step slower and tries to deal with that in other ways - but, unfortunately, not enough to beat the younger players who would have given him trouble even in his younger days.

Federer took a lot of bashing lately and I don't see how you see yourself as his fan or supporter or whatever you say you are. If you are trying to look sophisticated and superior, you have other options as well - real life.

Bill, fully agreed! I don't propound or support the 'weak era' theory, though Andy Roddick certainly doesn't make it any easier to argue otherwise

As I said to Jackson, I simply wanted to highlight the Federer lovers predicament!

Didn't know Nadal had skipped FO 2009? :-?

Come on 7000, you know better than to pick on faults! Alright, absent or injured is what I meant!

 

[tlm]

Ok then if you want to wait until the end of both of their careers to assess the better player fine, but that means that you can't make statements that you think Nadal is better because he is still playing. Correct? Surely you see that it works both ways.

Re your comment that nobody cares that Federer has won "x' amount titles in so many years, well that is one of the dumbest things I have seen written on this forum but if that is what you believe, fine with me.

Re the rest of your nonsense, I have stated my argument above and have explained my thinking on the matter. If you don't agree with me, that is fine, but many people may agree with me and even if they don't that is ok. Unlike you, I realize that other people have their own thoughts. Just because I don't agree with you it does not mean I am ignorant. Only an ignorant person would believe that.

Remember, I don't want to see you write that you think Nadal is the greatest because he has not finished his career yet according to your sage words of wisdom. Heed your own words.
:roll:

Where did you see where i wrote that nadal is the goat? When comparing 2 athletes career accomplishments it does not matter if 1 of them had a few years where they one a bigger # of majors. It is the total career majors won, not how many in different amounts of time in their careers. See but that is where you love to try to distort facts to try to make your untrue comparisons.


Why is it that you refuse to answer anything about comparing their majors won at the same age? Let me guess that is just more of my nonsense right, ya ya just stay in your fantasy world where you hide from the facts. You will not face the fact that rafa is ahead of fed at this point in his career compared to where fed was at the same time, you wont even acknowledge it.

Another example of you hiding from the truth. But you will jump on the chance to point out that fed has more majors. But that little fact that fed has been playing many more years has nothing to do with it right? Please explain why you will not admit that, come on mr realist lets hear it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Serve_Ace]

Did this just become another Federer vs Nadal thread? Wasn't this suppose to be about Djokovic and Nadal?

 

[Semi-Pro]

Did this just become another Federer vs Nadal thread? Wasn't this suppose to be about Djokovic and Nadal?

jackson_vile showed up.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So a thread about Djokovic has became Federer v Nadal...again.

:-?

Here's hoping for a new FO champion.

 

[Omega_7000]

jackson_vile showed up.

Although it usually is jackson_vile that drags Fed in to every thread, this time the blame falls on ksbh though...


Post # 26

Come on now, TheTruth! Would you rather have another Andy Roddick, who tucked his tail between his legs at the very sight of Federer, as a rival for the top player in the world? The current tennis scenario is a refreshing change from a few years ago. Gone are the Roddicks & Blakes from top flight of the tennis world.
Nole's attitude is what makes champions. He's simply letting his confidence show. Nadal will take his 6th FO crown but he's now got another worthy rival besides Federer and that can only be good for tennis viewers.

 

[MagneticCurls]

Oh now you wanna play that? Alright, I'm game! Here we go-

Please choose between the following-

1. Federer was indeed in his prime in 2009.

2. Federer was off his prime in 2009 so he won because of Nadal's absence. Which means that if Nadal wasn't injured, Federer wouldn't have any slams that year!

3. Federer would have won those slams in 2009 regardless. Off your prime, yet you win 2 slams and reach 2 other finals with Nadal in the field. Which means, the field has gotta be a very weak one! More ammunition for weak-era sticklers!

Now who is it that wants to have it both ways, or should I say 3 ways?!

ROFL!

#2 please. Fed probably wouldn't have won FO09 if Nadal was good enough to meet him in the final. But why do you think W goes automatically to Nadal? He beat Fed the year before 9-7 in the 5th. No guarantee he would have won it.

 

[dominikk1985]

I think noles statement is perfectly ok. he admitted that it will be hard, he just says he has a chance.

that guy won 24 matches and beat federer and nadal several times. what is he expected to say? should he say I bend over for nadal on clay and wait for the next HC season?

a no.2 player who beat the no.1 player twice in 2 weeks should have some confidence. can't hear overconfidence in his statement.

 

[F-T-S]

that guy won 24 matches and beat federer and nadal several times. what is he expected to say?

that made me laugh :lol:

 

[Magnus]

Djokovic should put his racquet where his mouth is. How many times he lost to Nadal on clay again? Exactly. Now, how many times he won? A big fat Zero.

This reminds me of the "King is Dead" comment by Djoker's parents after the AO SF. Djokovic never beat Fed again that year.

 

[Knightmace]

lmao he said in 2006 or 2007 RG final after he lost he said he was in control of the math lmao nadal's reaction weas priceless

 

[TheTruth]

Djokovic should put his racquet where his mouth is. How many times he lost to Nadal on clay again? Exactly. Now, how many times he won? A big fat Zero.

This reminds me of the "King is Dead" comment by Djoker's parents after the AO SF. Djokovic never beat Fed again that year.

Agreed.

I don't have a problem with Djoko being confident. He should be. What I didn't like was that we've seen this scenario before with disastrous results. I say, just post the result first. It's never a good idea to count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[5555]

Fact: We have not seen the new Djokovic on clay yet.

 

[tenis1]

Djokovic should put his racquet where his mouth is. How many times he lost to Nadal on clay again? Exactly. Now, how many times he won? A big fat Zero.

This reminds me of the "King is Dead" comment by Djoker's parents after the AO SF. Djokovic never beat Fed again that year.

Agreed.

I don't have a problem with Djoko being confident. He should be. What I didn't like was that we've seen this scenario before with disastrous results. I say, just post the result first. It's never a good idea to count your chickens before they hatch.

Here is what exactly Djokovic said from the OP link:

"I've never beaten him on clay," Djokovic told reporters after his epic third-set tiebreak victory over Nadal in the Miami sunshine on Sunday.

"He's the king of that surface, the guy to beat. But I think I have the game to challenge him on that surface, and I showed that in 2009. I think we had some great matches in Monte Carlo, final; in Madrid, semi-final, so it is possible.

"If I do have an opportunity to play him on clay, obviously I have to be aggressive. Clay is the slowest surface that we have, and it's the surface that suits him best."

So no chicken counting, no "King is dead" comment, just saying "I think I can challenge him". I don't see anything wrong or incorrect here and you guys are making this something it isn't. Please read carefully again the whole article.

What you wanted him to say?
"I will bent to Nadal on clay like the rest of the Spanish armada?".

 

[Sentinel]

that guy won 24 matches and beat federer and nadal several times. what is he expected to say?

Perhaps he could say:
1. I am just a flash in the pan
2. Roger is still the greatest to ever pick a racquet

That should be quite okay

 

[Omega_7000]

Here is what exactly Djokovic said from the OP link:



So no chicken counting, no "King is dead" comment, just saying "I think I can challenge him". I don't see anything wrong or incorrect here and you guys are making this something it isn't. Please read carefully again the whole article.

What you wanted him to say?
"I will bent to Nadal on clay like the rest of the Spanish armada?".

Good post. The *******s are getting a bit insecure it seems. A harmless statement like "I think I can challenge him on clay" is making them run around like headless chickens.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So no chicken counting, no "King is dead" comment, just saying "I think I can challenge him". I don't see anything wrong or incorrect here and you guys are making this something it isn't. Please read carefully again the whole article.

What you wanted him to say?
"I will bent to Nadal on clay like the rest of the Spanish armada?".

Very good post!

There is nothing wrong with saying that "I can do it". You should have the belief in your heart, and your mind to know that you can go the distance. He has nothing but praise for Nadal in that statement, showing his maturity and respect for his fellow rival. However, if you don't have it in your heart, then how do you expect to accomplish anything in life?

Djokovic's maturity on the court has taken a staggering leap upwards. Despite winning everything in sight from Davis Cup to now, he kept fully focused and saw off a determined Nadal in both IW and Miami. Sure IW, Nadal was coming back from some time off, however he did make the final, so he wasn't playing that bad either. And in Miami, Nadal was determined to stop the streak, and if Djokovic would have lost, who would have blamed him, having trounced everyone in his path since December? But, he met the challenge, embraced it and eventually outlasted the mighty Bull from Majorca.

His statement is respectful, but at the same time shows that he confidient (not arrogant) that he can beat Nadal on clay. And why not? Before IW-Miami, Novak had never even beaten Nadal in a final, and he changed that in a hurry. So, why not clay?

And this is good for the game. Why should he say he can live with Rafa on clay AFTER beating him, we would already know that. And he has shown he can hang with Nadal, Hamburg 08, MC and Madrid 09 were fantastic matches.

If you keep knocking on the door, eventually you can smash it in. Belief is of paramount importance.

 

[Pozarevacka]

Good post. The *******s are getting a bit insecure it seems. A harmless statement like "I think I can challenge him on clay" is making them run around like headless chickens.

Definitely true. Anyways, we all know Ralph is going to get injured sometime during clay season and that'll be their excuse.

 

[The-Champ]

What you wanted him to say?
"I will bent to Nadal on clay like the rest of the Spanish armada?".

No credit to Nadal's ability on clay at all? they just all bend over for him?


Maybe people are not just good enough to beat him on that surface.

 

[TheTruth]

Here is what exactly Djokovic said from the OP link:



So no chicken counting, no "King is dead" comment, just saying "I think I can challenge him". I don't see anything wrong or incorrect here and you guys are making this something it isn't. Please read carefully again the whole article.

What you wanted him to say?
"I will bent to Nadal on clay like the rest of the Spanish armada?".

Cool.

I like Djokovic. He's always been my no. 2, so I don't want to see a repeat of what happened the last time, that's all.

I have much love for Nole. My fandom for Nadal doesn't make me hate him as a player.

I still wish he would zip his lip though, because the media isn't as forgiving as we'd like them to be...

 

[tenis1]

Cool.

I like Djokovic. He's always been my no. 2, so I don't want to see a repeat of what happened the last time, that's all.

I have much love for Nole. My fandom for Nadal doesn't make me hate him as a player.

I still wish he would zip his lip though, because the media isn't as forgiving as we'd like them to be...

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[JimF]

Miami was clay -- in disguise.

Surprised no one posted this

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04042011/58/djokovic-live-rafa-clay.html

By winning Miami, Djokovic has basically beaten Nadal on clay.

As Fed said before the tournament, "Comden Park is basically red clay, except you can't slide on it."

 

[cc0509]

Where did you see where i wrote that nadal is the goat? When comparing 2 athletes career accomplishments it does not matter if 1 of them had a few years where they one a bigger # of majors. It is the total career majors won, not how many in different amounts of time in their careers. See but that is where you love to try to distort facts to try to make your untrue comparisons.


Why is it that you refuse to answer anything about comparing their majors won at the same age? Let me guess that is just more of my nonsense right, ya ya just stay in your fantasy world where you hide from the facts. You will not face the fact that rafa is ahead of fed at this point in his career compared to where fed was at the same time, you wont even acknowledge it.

Another example of you hiding from the truth. But you will jump on the chance to point out that fed has more majors. But that little fact that fed has been playing many more years has nothing to do with it right? Please explain why you will not admit that, come on mr realist lets hear it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re the whole achievements by age thing, yes I have seen those stats. To me they are fairly comparable with Nadal ahead in many areas and Federer ahead in some others, but so what? You mean to say, I should judge Federer vs Nadal's whole careers thus far in terms of what they have won vis-à-vis age parameters? Does it matter if Roger won something later than Rafa by one year, one month or one minute? Who cares? It is just "one" way to look at the stats between Roger and Rafa. It is not the "only" way even though you want everybody to believe that. The reality is Roger won most of his awards and records after the age of 23/24. He packed a lot of punch in very few number of years. Rafa did it more slowly over time from his teenage years. Again, so what? What difference does it make when you are looking at the greatness of either player? It only matters what each of them achieves at the end of the day in total. It does not matter if one of them achieves something when they are 17 years of age or 27 years of age. That is the reality if you want reality. Only extreme *********s looking to skew the argument in favor of Nadal would think on those restrictive terms.

Bottom line is as I have said before, both are great players for different reasons. Let's see how it all plays out.

 

[tlm]

Re the whole achievements by age thing, yes I have seen those stats. To me they are fairly comparable with Nadal ahead in many areas and Federer ahead in some others, but so what? You mean to say, I should judge Federer vs Nadal's whole careers thus far in terms of what they have won vis-à-vis age parameters? Does it matter if Roger won something later than Rafa by one year, one month or one minute? Who cares? It is just "one" way to look at the stats between Roger and Rafa. It is not the "only" way even though you want everybody to believe that. The reality is Roger won most of his awards and records after the age of 23/24. He packed a lot of punch in very few number of years. Rafa did it more slowly over time from his teenage years. Again, so what? What difference does it make when you are looking at the greatness of either player? It only matters what each of them achieves at the end of the day in total. It does not matter if one of them achieves something when they are 17 years of age or 27 years of age. That is the reality if you want reality. Only extreme *********s looking to skew the argument in favor of Nadal would think on those restrictive terms.

Bottom line is as I have said before, both are great players for different reasons. Let's see how it all plays out.

Look many of the fed fans want to compare the amount of majors won, which is totally unfair because rafa has not played as long as fed has. Can you understand that? Or is that to hard to comprehend? I am not saying that it matters at what time or what age they won this or that, it does not matter in the big picture.

My obvious point to anyone who has any reading comprehension skills is that you cannot compare feds total majors to rafas because rafa has not played as long. So if there is any fair comparison made now it would be what they have achieved at the same amount of time that they have played professional tennis. Does this make any sense?

You stated that it does not matter what age they were when they had their best success when looking at the greatness of either player. I agree 100%, i never said that it did. Please show me were i stated that. I will spell it out again for you slow learners the only way to make a complete comparison is when both players have retired, but until then you would compare the amount of majors won at the same amount of time played.

But i guess this is not obvious to people that don't live in reality. Only extreme *******s trying to skew the results in their favor could debate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[powerangle]

Look many of the fed fans want to compare the amount of majors won, which is totally unfair because rafa has not played as long as fed has. Can you understand that? Or is that to hard to comprehend? I am not saying that it matters at what time or what age they won this or that, it does not matter in the big picture.

My obvious point to anyone who has any reading comprehension skills is that you cannot compare feds total majors to rafas because rafa has not played as long. So if there is any fair comparison made now it would be what they have achieved at the same amount of time that they have played professional tennis. Does this make any sense?

You stated that it does not matter what age they were when they had their best success when looking at the greatness of either player. I agree 100%, i never said that it did. Please show me were i stated that. I will spell it out again for you slow learners the only way to make a complete comparison is when both players have retired, but until then you would compare the amount of majors won at the same amount of time played.

But i guess this is not obvious to people that don't live in reality. Only extreme *******s trying to skew the results in their favor could debate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is why it's not fair to compare total career achievements between Federer and Nadal NOR is it fair to compare their achievements by age, since players peak at different ages.

The fact of the matter is, Federer has accomplished more, but Nadal may surpass him. Hence let's wait and see. One cannot say for sure that Nadal will surpass Fed just because he is ahead a little by the same age.

 

[TheTruth]

By winning Miami, Djokovic has basically beaten Nadal on clay.

As Fed said before the tournament, "Comden Park is basically red clay, except you can't slide on it."

That doesn't make it gospel, and clay is to be slid on, so if you can't slide on it, it ain't clay, it's a hard court.

What kills me about these theories:

1. Everyone seems to forget that Nadal came into IW after injury and a month off, he was playing on his worst surface and Novak's best surface.

2. Novak was match tough and on a serious win streak playing a match rusty opponent.

3. Nadal, Novak, Murray, and Fed have been the Top 4 for years. They're used to the big matches and are expected to get by the "lesser" players in the early rounds, but when the Top 4 play each other a higher skill set is needed.

4. Nole has not beaten Nadal on clay, yet. The next few months will let us know if he will.

 

[TheTruth]

Look many of the fed fans want to compare the amount of majors won, which is totally unfair because rafa has not played as long as fed has. Can you understand that? Or is that to hard to comprehend? I am not saying that it matters at what time or what age they won this or that, it does not matter in the big picture.

My obvious point to anyone who has any reading comprehension skills is that you cannot compare feds total majors to rafas because rafa has not played as long. So if there is any fair comparison made now it would be what they have achieved at the same amount of time that they have played professional tennis. Does this make any sense?

You stated that it does not matter what age they were when they had their best success when looking at the greatness of either player. I agree 100%, i never said that it did. Please show me were i stated that. I will spell it out again for you slow learners the only way to make a complete comparison is when both players have retired, but until then you would compare the amount of majors won at the same amount of time played.

But i guess this is not obvious to people that don't live in reality. Only extreme *******s trying to skew the results in their favor could debate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excellent points!

Many try to say the h2h doesn't, or shouldn't matter, then throw out an even more skewed statistic that allows Fed's extra years to attain his achievements, over teenaged competition. That is what's unfair, imo.

How about not comparing them at all until it's all over?

But, this is a message board and we're going to compare, so people have to deal with all points of view, not just those that favor their player. That's the true reality.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Interesting how the, "it was Rafa's worst surface and Nole's best surface", is very reminiscent of the "it was Roger's worst surface and Rafa's best surface".

But, at the end of the day, a win is a win. And they all count. Nole had never beaten Rafa in a final, ANY final, ever...and that changed around in a hurry. Sure, Nadal was playing his first tournament back after AO, but he got to the final, so he couldn't have been that bad either...unless the competition is so pathetic and dare I say it, weak, that even a rusty Nadal can get through to the final of IW AND Miami, on his worst surface. That would just destroy the whole, it is much more competitive now than it was when Federer was dominating.

One thing about this sport, never say never. Nole has been shown what he is capable of doing these past few months, and it is amazing what confidence can do for you.

 

[Murrayfan31]

That doesn't make it gospel, and clay is to be slid on, so if you can't slide on it, it ain't clay, it's a hard court.

What kills me about these theories:

1. Everyone seems to forget that Nadal came into IW after injury and a month off, he was playing on his worst surface and Novak's best surface.

2. Novak was match tough and on a serious win streak playing a match rusty opponent.

3. Nadal, Novak, Murray, and Fed have been the Top 4 for years. They're used to the big matches and are expected to get by the "lesser" players in the early rounds, but when the Top 4 play each other a higher skill set is needed.

4. Nole has not beaten Nadal on clay, yet. The next few months will let us know if he will.

Number 4 is the unknown. I got a good feeling Nole will beat Nadal now that he is fresh due to skipping Monte-Carlo. Something Nadal should've done btw but he is too stupid after 2 straight finals and the last match going over 3 hours. It's a marathon and not a sprint. Djokovic will be fresher player by the time RG comes up. And the 2 slowest hardcourts are Miami and Indian Wells. You could not be closer to clay than those 2 tournaments without it being clay.

 

[Tony48]

That doesn't make it gospel, and clay is to be slid on, so if you can't slide on it, it ain't clay, it's a hard court.

What kills me about these theories:

1. Everyone seems to forget that Nadal came into IW after injury and a month off, he was playing on his worst surface and Novak's best surface.

You know what kills me? This "Nadal's worst surface, Novak's best surface" crap. It's a TOTAL talking point since it's been said at least a zillion times by quite few Nadal fans. It's designed to make Nadal seem superior during a loss and Djokovic (and anybody else Nadal loses to) inferior during a win. He made back-to-back Masters finals so this "worst surface" stuff is utter nonsense. People are making it appear as if he struggles to win matches on hard courts.

Nadal is one set away from winning the entire tournament on his worst surface. Woe is he. Poor baby.

 

[tlm]

You know what kills me? This "Nadal's worst surface, Novak's best surface" crap. It's a TOTAL talking point since it's been said at least a zillion times by quite few Nadal fans. It's designed to make Nadal seem superior during a loss and Djokovic (and anybody else Nadal loses to) inferior during a win. He made back-to-back Masters finals so this "worst surface" stuff is utter nonsense. People are making it appear as if he struggles to win matches on hard courts.

Nadal is one set away from winning the entire tournament on his worst surface. Woe is he. Poor baby.

Nadal is best on natural surfaces, that is just the way it is. Just because a lot of you dont want to accept it does not change the fact that hard court is his weakest surface. I will say that these last 2 hardcourt events were slower than a lot of the other hardcourts, which is better for nadal.

I still cant believe that he played so good last year at the uso, which is a very fast hardcourt, were he has never played well in the past. But he has always been more vulnerable on the hardcourts+joker has always played his best on hardcourts. I cant see how that point is debatable, just check their records according to surfaces.

 

[Tony48]

Nadal is best on natural surfaces, that is just the way it is. Just because a lot of you dont want to accept it does not change the fact that hard court is his weakest surface. I will say that these last 2 hardcourt events were slower than a lot of the other hardcourts, which is better for nadal.

I still cant believe that he played so good last year at the uso, which is a very fast hardcourt, were he has never played well in the past. But he has always been more vulnerable on the hardcourts+joker has always played his best on hardcourts. I cant see how that point is debatable, just check their records according to surfaces.

"Worst" in this context has very disingenuous connotations, as if he struggles to ever win.

That's like saying the Australian Open and the U.S. Open were Steffi Graf's worst tournaments, even though she won them both 5 times.

 

[Pozarevacka]

That doesn't make it gospel, and clay is to be slid on, so if you can't slide on it, it ain't clay, it's a hard court.

What kills me about these theories:

1. Everyone seems to forget that Nadal came into IW after injury and a month off, he was playing on his worst surface and Novak's best surface.

2. Novak was match tough and on a serious win streak playing a match rusty opponent.

3. Nadal, Novak, Murray, and Fed have been the Top 4 for years. They're used to the big matches and are expected to get by the "lesser" players in the early rounds, but when the Top 4 play each other a higher skill set is needed.

4. Nole has not beaten Nadal on clay, yet. The next few months will let us know if he will.

WTF are you talking about? Ralph came into Miami perfectly healthy. Stop it with this Ralph injury bug talk.

You seem to forget that Ralph lost 2 finals matches versus Djoker. Whatever the circumstances are, 10 years from now looking back no one is going to say, "oh Ralph was injured and he was hobbling around and still fought. what a warrior!". Nobody cares. If you show up for the match, you are good to go.

I wasn't aware that his injury made him forget how to play tennis.

Also, doesn't almost everyone come into AO with over a month off? Is everyone rusty then?


Stop it with the excuses.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

WTF are you talking about? Ralph came into Miami perfectly healthy. Stop it with this Ralph injury bug talk.

You seem to forget that Ralph lost 2 finals matches versus Djoker. Whatever the circumstances are, 10 years from now looking back no one is going to say, "oh Ralph was injured and he was hobbling around and still fought. what a warrior!". Nobody cares. If you show up for the match, you are good to go.

I wasn't aware that his injury made him forget how to play tennis.

Also, doesn't almost everyone come into AO with over a month off? Is everyone rusty then?


Stop it with the excuses.

It is ridiculous. The Nadal fans who are making excuses about HC being Nadal's worst surface are usually the same ones who are extremely closed minded about accepting the fact that playing 12 out of 21 matches on clay undoubtedly helped Nadal build an amazing H2H record over Federer.

Now that Djokovic has beaten Nadal twice it has suddenly become acceptable to factor in a player's weak surface after a loss.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I cannot believe Nadal fans made an issue out of this. What is he supposed to say? "I can't beat Rafa on clay ever ever ever!"? Fortunately, Djokovic is an ambitious guy who does not seem to have his head up any player's arse.

 

[cc0509]

Look many of the fed fans want to compare the amount of majors won, which is totally unfair because rafa has not played as long as fed has. Can you understand that? Or is that to hard to comprehend? I am not saying that it matters at what time or what age they won this or that, it does not matter in the big picture.

My obvious point to anyone who has any reading comprehension skills is that you cannot compare feds total majors to rafas because rafa has not played as long. So if there is any fair comparison made now it would be what they have achieved at the same amount of time that they have played professional tennis. Does this make any sense?

You stated that it does not matter what age they were when they had their best success when looking at the greatness of either player. I agree 100%, i never said that it did. Please show me were i stated that. I will spell it out again for you slow learners the only way to make a complete comparison is when both players have retired, but until then you would compare the amount of majors won at the same amount of time played.

But i guess this is not obvious to people that don't live in reality. Only extreme *******s trying to skew the results in their favor could debate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh okay, whatever you say! :twisted:

If the only way to make a "complete" comparison as you have stated, is at the end of both of their careers, then you should not be saying you think Rafa is greater "now" which you do 24/7 by the way.

Look, as far as I know, there is no law stating that people need to interpret the achievements of Roger and Rafael in only ONE way--i.e. your way. Nice try though. It is a nice theory in practice but you are not going to stop people from thinking what they want on the subject of whether Roger or Rafa is greater. You get back to me at the end of both of their careers though and we will see what is what.

 

[cc0509]

Fortunately, Djokovic is an ambitious guy who does not seem to have his head up any player's arse.

Except when he says that Rafa is the GOAT for him!

 

[cc0509]

It is ridiculous. The Nadal fans who are making excuses about HC being Nadal's worst surface are usually the same ones who are extremely closed minded about accepting the fact that playing 12 out of 21 matches on clay undoubtedly helped Nadal build an amazing H2H record over Federer.

Oh Bravo! You get bonus points for that one!

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Except when he says that Rafa is the GOAT for him!

lol kinda like Rafa after clearly establishing his no. 1 ranking by beating Federer at the AO saying "Roger, you are still the best." I really loled at Rafa there.

 

[cc0509]

lol kinda like Rafa after clearly establishing his no. 1 ranking by beating Federer at the AO saying "Roger, you are still the best." I really loled at Rafa there.

Didn't Novak also say this to Roger a few times? I know Murray has said it to Roger a bunch of times after Roger defeated him as well. They all have their heads up each other's a$$es at opportune times!

 

[TheTruth]

You know what kills me? This "Nadal's worst surface, Novak's best surface" crap. It's a TOTAL talking point since it's been said at least a zillion times by quite few Nadal fans. It's designed to make Nadal seem superior during a loss and Djokovic (and anybody else Nadal loses to) inferior during a win. He made back-to-back Masters finals so this "worst surface" stuff is utter nonsense. People are making it appear as if he struggles to win matches on hard courts.

Nadal is one set away from winning the entire tournament on his worst surface. Woe is he. Poor baby.

Come on, now. Fed fans have been saying this for years. This is not a new talking point. If I had a dollar for all the times I've heard people calling clay Fed's worst surface, when Fed himself said he grew up on the stuff, I'd be rich.

So, now you're saying hard court is one of his best surfaces, when pundits and fans have been saying for years he would never win a hard court slam? Then, after he won the Oz, he was never going to win the USO? These
are all recent, very recent talking points.

Facts:

People on this board constantly decried the skewing of the h2h due to it being Fed's "worst" surface.

They constantly declared Nadal inferior on the hard courts.

Now, you're acting as if Nadal fans are wrong. I've heard these two "facts" on this board for over five years.

 

[cc0509]

Come on, now. Fed fans have been saying this for years. This is not a new talking point. If I had a dollar for all the times I've heard people calling clay Fed's worst surface, when Fed himself said he grew up on the stuff, I'd be rich.

Who cares if he grew up on it? It is his worst surface.

 

[tlm]

Oh okay, whatever you say! :twisted:

If the only way to make a "complete" comparison as you have stated, is at the end of both of their careers, then you should not be saying you think Rafa is greater "now" which you do 24/7 by the way.

Look, as far as I know, there is no law stating that people need to interpret the achievements of Roger and Rafael in only ONE way--i.e. your way. Nice try though. It is a nice theory in practice but you are not going to stop people from thinking what they want on the subject of whether Roger or Rafa is greater. You get back to me at the end of both of their careers though and we will see what is what.

Again you are constantly lying + making up more crap, you say i am claiming rafa is greater 24/7. Really that is news to me, just another example of your lies. I said if you want to make a fair comparison, but of course you dont want any part of that.

Because then your bs goes right out the window. You call it theory, no its called common sense which you obviously do not possess. You can interpret their achievements any way you want to. Just keep your dream world to yourself, your constant bs will not fly in reality.

 

[tlm]

"Worst" in this context has very disingenuous connotations, as if he struggles to ever win.

That's like saying the Australian Open and the U.S. Open were Steffi Graf's worst tournaments, even though she won them both 5 times.

Well i will agree it is not like he is terrible on it, but compared to clay+grass he is not near as good.

 

[Tony48]

Come on, now. Fed fans have been saying this for years. This is not a new talking point. If I had a dollar for all the times I've heard people calling clay Fed's worst surface, when Fed himself said he grew up on the stuff, I'd be rich.

So, now you're saying hard court is one of his best surfaces, when pundits and fans have been saying for years he would never win a hard court slam? Then, after he won the Oz, he was never going to win the USO? These
are all recent, very recent talking points.

Facts:

People on this board constantly decried the skewing of the h2h due to it being Fed's "worst" surface.

They constantly declared Nadal inferior on the hard courts.

Now, you're acting as if Nadal fans are wrong. I've heard these two "facts" on this board for over five years.

Well, BOTH groups are equally guilty. It's just a matter of calling each group out on it. But back to Djokovic....because I don't want to turn this thread into yet ANOTHER Nadal vs. Federer fan war.

 

[TheTruth]

WTF are you talking about? Ralph came into Miami perfectly healthy. Stop it with this Ralph injury bug talk.

You seem to forget that Ralph lost 2 finals matches versus Djoker. Whatever the circumstances are, 10 years from now looking back no one is going to say, "oh Ralph was injured and he was hobbling around and still fought. what a warrior!". Nobody cares. If you show up for the match, you are good to go.
I wasn't aware that his injury made him forget how to play tennis.

Also, doesn't almost everyone come into AO with over a month off? Is everyone rusty then?


Stop it with the excuses.

Seems you can't distinguish between excuses and facts.

Wasn't he off for a month due to injury? Fact!

Wouldn't that make him not as match tough? Another fact!

Everyone knows the hard courts have been Nadal's bane ever since he came on tour, but he's getting better.

That's not to say Djokovic wouldn't have still beat him since he already led the h2h on hard court, so I don't see where I've made any excuses. I just tried to put some perspective on the recent Djokovic is GOAT hype so many of engaging in.

Sorry, I have to laugh at the bolded part. This board is full of excuses for their favorite players, but while we're at it, here's one that I'm tired of. Federer is past his prime because he can't beat the #1 and #2 players at will. He's 52-1 against the tour. How about that one?

I'll bet you weren't calling those people excuse makers and signaling it with a WTF.

 

[TheTruth]

Well, BOTH groups are equally guilty. It's just a matter of calling each group out on it. But back to Djokovic....because I don't want to turn this thread into yet ANOTHER Nadal vs. Federer fan war.

I agree. It's just that I can't stand it when people are constantly calling out what they called the "*********s," while giving Federer fans a free pass on their double standards.

But, back to Djokovic...

 

[cc0509]

Again you are constantly lying + making up more crap, you say i am claiming rafa is greater 24/7. Really that is news to me, just another example of your lies. I said if you want to make a fair comparison, but of course you dont want any part of that.

Because then your bs goes right out the window. You call it theory, no its called common sense which you obviously do not possess. You can interpret their achievements any way you want to. Just keep your dream world to yourself, your constant bs will not fly in reality.

WTF are you talking about? I said, you are right. At the end of both of their careers is the time to truly make any comparisons but you are not going to stop anybody on this forum from giving their opinions which they are perfectly allowed to do.

Are you saying that on this forum you have not ever said that you think Rafa is greater than Roger? Good thing you are not under oath in a court of law. Your inconsistent statements would be through the roof! :shock:

 

[cc0509]

here's one that I'm tired of. Federer is past his prime because he can't beat the #1 and #2 players at will. He's 52-1 against the tour. How about that one?

Newsflash: Roger is past his prime and has been for a number of years now. It is just that he is still good enough to be ranked at the top of the heap. Shows you how inept the ATP really is--i.e.players ranked 4 through 50 and so on. An almost 30 year old man is owning everybody else in the ATP including Djokovic and Nadal on his good days "still." LMAO. Wonder if Rafa and Novak will be able to do the same when they are 30? Both of them will probably be in wheelchairs by then at the rate they are going with their knees and injuries.

 

[cc0509]

Seems you can't distinguish between excuses and facts.

Wasn't he off for a month due to injury? Fact!

Wouldn't that make him not as match tough? Another fact!

Who cares if Nadal was off for a month and was not match tough? The guy is a professional tennis player. That means he practices on a daily basis in order to be prepared for any tournament. It is not like he is a marine biologist in his real life. That is all tennis players DO--i.e. prepare day in and day out for matches. That is what they get paid for. When they show up on court, it is what it is. They either win or lose each match and that is how they build their careers. Nobody cares if they did not have enough rest before or if they were not match ready before each match at the end of the day. Same goes for Federer or anybody else on tour.