"Djokovic incident will change tennis" - Woodbridge

_GOATbis

Rookie
And what?

Nadal and Fed slam counts will be asterisked that they are better than Djok #1 because he was a controversial person?
 

1H-Backhand

New User
TENNIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!
Tennis is about being better than your opponent.

If Djokovic has better records than everyone, why can't he be called the greatest ever? Joke of an expert.
Yeah, sure, sports are not a popularity contest. But having the best record doesn't always imply you are the best. Take O'Sullivan for example, absolutely everyone you ask (pundits, players past and presents, etc.) would have told you he is the best ever to have picked up a snooker cue even before he got anywhere near breaking all the records (and he still hasn't got the most World Championships)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Woodbridge is talking nonsense. The rule divides ball abuse into reckless and egregious. So he is wrong.

The USTA statement on the incident says that it was an intentional act, whereas even people who agree with the disqualification tend toward non-intentional.

According to Woodbrige : "If the player hits ANYBODY on the court whether INTENTIONAL or NON-INTENTIONAL, he/she should be disqualified
with immediate effect"

I mean Roger has hit boll boys before.....so what should we make of it? Is Woodbridge wrong here?
 

blablavla

Legend
This will be nothing more than a footnote on the Djokovic resume at most - unless he falls one short of Bull or Maestro. Then it will certainly be a talking point.
even then most likely it will be forgotten.
only some of the Novak die hard fans will keep talking about it, although as soon as someone else will start dominating, many fanboyz and fangirlz will jump the wagon and will glofiry the new player
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Woodbridge is talking nonsense. The rule divides ball abuse into reckless and egregious. So he is wrong.

The USTA statement on the incident says that it was an intentional act, whereas even people who agree with the disqualification tend toward non-intentional.
The USTA never said that hitting the lady was intentional.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Zinedine Zidane head-butted an opponent in his last match, which also happened to be the World Cup final of 2006. He got sent off (red carded). At the time he was disgraced, however years later he is now a well respected coach, people have high esteem towards him and is regarded as one of the greatest ever. The same will happen to Djoker.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Zinedine Zidane head-butted an opponent in his last match, which also happened to be the World Cup final of 2006. He got sent off (red carded). At the time he was disgraced, however years later he is now a well respected coach, people have high esteem towards him and is regarded as one of the greatest ever. The same will happen to Djoker.
"Zidane explained later that Materazzi made uncouth remarks about his female relatives, which provoked the move."

:cool:
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
It will mean Nadal has won 3 more slams than Djokovic by the end of 2020, and Nadal will also still have more US Open titles than Djokovic....
It will be like 2020 never happened, but 20-20 will have.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
13 clay Slams is too big a skew though.
Also the fact that Nadal has won more US Opens than Djokovic, that's a problem for somebody....
Think about it, Nadal has won 12 French Opens, and Djokovic hasn't even won as many US Opens as Nadal.
Good luck using the 'skew' against Nadal, when he's won more US Opens than the supposed king of hardcourts....
Nadal is one of the most versatile all-surface players in the history of tennis.
He's certainly more versatile than Sampras and Agassi.
Who else has even won multiple slams on clay, grass and hardcourt?
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
The USTA never said that hitting the lady was intentional.
Ignore the Bartlebot. It loves defending the indefensible. Still trying to convince the world that Meldonium had 0 effect in Maria Sharipova and no performance enhancing effects at all. You remember Sharipova, lanky, shrieked a lot, suddenly got worse when unable to take meldonium.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
It will mean Nadal has won 3 more slams than Djokovic by the end of 2020, and Nadal will also still have more US Open titles than Djokovic....
It will be like 2020 never happened, but 20-20 will have.
Who will have had more week at #1 by a large margin? Chances are Novak will have 5 more WTF titles than Rafa. Novak would have won ALL masters titles at least twice, something neither Rafa or Roger have NOT done once. Also, there is a good chance Novak will end this year at #1, having done so 6 times to Rafa and Roger's 5. Slams are NOT all that is important to a player's legacy, at least they should NOT be.
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
Who will have had more week at #1 by a large margin? Chances are Novak will have 5 more WTF titles than Rafa. Novak would have won ALL masters titles at least twice, something neither Rafa or Roger have NOT done once. Also, there is a good chance Novak will end this year at #1, having done so 6 times to Rafa and Roger's 5. Slams are NOT all that is important to a player's legacy, at least they should NOT be.
I agree with your last sentence. Attitude on court, control of temper, all those sorts of things need to go into the mix.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Zinedine Zidane head-butted an opponent in his last match, which also happened to be the World Cup final of 2006. He got sent off (red carded). At the time he was disgraced, however years later he is now a well respected coach, people have high esteem towards him and is regarded as one of the greatest ever. The same will happen to Djoker.
zidane is the most overrated football player of all time. it would be terrible if france had won the 2006 world cup. then zidane would have more world cups
than maradona or gerd müller, players who are much much better than him.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
zidane is the most overrated football player of all time. it would be terrible if france had won the 2006 world cup. then zidane would have more world cups
than maradona or gerd müller, players who are much much better than him.
To think that he has more WCs than Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldo (POR) combined.

:happydevil:
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
To think that he has more WCs than Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldo (POR) combined.

:happydevil:
all 3 much better players than zidane.

Ronaldo (POR) never had a team that was strong enough to win the wc. he also didnt show up in the ko stage. but even if he would have shown up, they would not have won.

Messi on the other hand has himself to blame. he disappered in the semifinal and final in wc 2014. if only he had scored against germany....
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I read their statement twice. They do use the word 'intentional' at the beginning of their statement, although the wording is deliberately ambiguous or perhaps legalistic.

This is why I did not claim that they said he hit the lady intentionally.

And the Meldonium nonsense took a new turn with WADA threatening to ban American athletes because the White House won't fund WADA's doping functions anymore.

The USTA never said that hitting the lady was intentional.
Ignore the Bartlebot. It loves defending the indefensible. Still trying to convince the world that Meldonium had 0 effect in Maria Sharipova and no performance enhancing effects at all. You remember Sharipova, lanky, shrieked a lot, suddenly got worse when unable to take meldonium.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
all 3 much better players than zidane.

Ronaldo (POR) never had a team that was strong enough to win the wc. he also didnt show up in the ko stage. but even if he would have shown up, they would not have won.

Messi on the other hand has himself to blame. he disappered in the semifinal and final in wc 2014. if only he had scored against germany....
So, what you are saying is that regardless of whether the player had or didn't have a world class team while failing at the WC, Zidane is to blame and not worth it. Jeee, I know that most are too young, but I wonder what the excuse for the Holland's fvckups is?

In any event, no one knowing anything about Football will ever say that Zidane was "overrated".

:cool:
 

urban

Legend
Djokovic made a fault, and the disqualification is correct, if the rules say so. But one should no make more of it, than it was. It was generated by frustation, maybe the hard fall some points before had still an impact. But it wasn't an outburst of any kind, but simply a medium paced loose ball to the baseline, without looking at the linewoman, who was imo a bit moving to the right. It even was not put straight to the half line sign, where normally the lineswomen sits or stands. I thought that the hard hit frustation ball into the ground some minutes before was much worse. It was dumb for an experienced top player, but i have seen much, much worse behaviour on court by Mac, Nastase, Connors, even Becker or Serena Williams, when nobody was defaulted. Even Fed hit a ballboy once.
I found Djokers form overall not convincing. In his matches vs. Agut or Raonic at the Masters or Edmund here he looked somehow nervous and uncalm, playing some very loose balls and many dropshots and never finding his smooth groundstroke rhythm, which he does best. He should focus more n his tennis, and not get distracted by all kinds of surrounding context matters.
 

BGod

Legend
Lines people were only propped up by their union so goodbye for sure.

As for if Novak ends up 1 shy of the GS record? Well I mean you could just as well argue 2 MPs blown by Roger.
 

Lew II

Legend
After pretty game now it's the turn of pretty attitude.

Djokovic is better than Fedal in the game of tennis, you have to accept it.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
I read their statement twice. They do use the word 'intentional' at the beginning of their statement, although the wording is deliberately ambiguous or perhaps legalistic.

This is why I did not claim that they said he hit the lady intentionally.

And the Meldonium nonsense took a new turn with WADA threatening to ban American athletes because the White House won't fund WADA's doping functions anymore.
Legalistic perhaps, but I think their meaning is pretty clear.

"of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court"

They are not at all saying that he intentionally aimed for the line judge, but only that he intentionally hit the ball recklessly within the court, as opposed to this being some reflexive action such as mishitting a ball during play or something like that.

Freak accidents can happen even when one is acting prudently. Someone can unexpectedly jump in front of my car while I'm driving in a lawful manner. If I'm intentionally going way over speed limit or driving while intoxicated, that would introduce a high degree of recklessness and would make my culpability in any accident greater even if I didn't literally mean to hit anyone. Because I knowingly and intentionally engaged in behavior that predictably increased the risk of an accident.

The recklessness refers only to his action -- deliberately hitting the ball in a potentially 'dangerous' way (not very dangerous in this case) -- and not the effect (hitting the throat of the linesperson). His action would have been reckless even if he 'missed', but that wouldn't warrant more than a point penalty. When you add the effect -- hitting the throat of the judge -- the judgment of the USTA was that his action went from merely reckless to egregious and therefore a direct DQ. You are of course right that, the way the rules are written, this jump entails a certain amount of subjective discretion on the part of the officials. But it would be very difficult for them to justify letting Djokovic off the hook for recklessly hitting a ball that ended up hitting the throat of an official that went down for the count while still enforcing the rule in more flagrant cases of the same behavior (Shapovalov or Henman) where virtually everyone would agree that it should be a DQ. The mitigating factor for Djokovic is that he didn't hit the ball terribly hard, but enforcing some sort of MPH limit in snap judgments like this is obviously unrealistic.
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
Also the fact that Nadal has won more US Opens than Djokovic, that's a problem for somebody....
Think about it, Nadal has won 12 French Opens, and Djokovic hasn't even won as many US Opens as Nadal.
Good luck using the 'skew' against Nadal, when he's won more US Opens than the supposed king of hardcourts....
Nadal is one of the most versatile all-surface players in the history of tennis.
He's certainly more versatile than Sampras and Agassi.
Who else has even won multiple slams on clay, grass and hardcourt?
Won only 1 AO. Won 0 ATP Finals indoor.

And yes, indoor counts as a separate category from outdoor hard courts because the playing conditions are drastically different.

Nadal's achievements are enormous, much more than Agassi's, but I would actually put Agassi ahead for versatility. Especially since he won Wimbledon from the baseline at a time when the playing conditions were much faster, won the ATP Finals and made 4 more finals there.
 

GabeT

Legend
McEnroe was denied Wimbledon honorary membership after his 1981 win (something that hadn’t happened before -or since- IIRC) due to his behavior. Does anyone other than tennis historians remember that? Heck, Jmac is now remembered as a “colorful” player and not as a brat that was constantly in trouble.
 

urban

Legend
The modern players, except maybe Kyrgios, are quite harmless, in contrast to the times of Gonzalez, Mac, Connors, Nastase, when the rules were more loosely set, and the drawing cards always got away with murder. Mac should hven been defaulted in his upcoming years, when he always got a free ticket. When he was disqualified at last once at AO vs Pernfors, he was already in the last stage of his career. Connors was terrible with abuse language and gestures, Nastase put on a riot once with umpire Frank Hammond at Flushing, and once got into a fistfight with the German Pohmann. Brit Roger Taylor knocked cold Bob Hewitt at Berlin in 1969, probably Bad Bob deserved it well. Gentleman Tim Henman, a wonder of fairness, was defaulted for hitting a ballgirl even at Wimbledon. Big Bill Tilden, in my book still one of the 3 best players of all time, was sentenced twice to jail, he was controversial, yes in any case, but in tennis terms he was the goat, too.
 

mxjeff

New User
We have seen terrible behavior on the court by players of the past and what Djokovic did was no big deal and way overblown. The linesperson did react in a way that seemed excessive but that leads to the greater issue is that we really don't need line people on the courts anymore when we have good technology to call the lines. The peeps that act outraged at Djoker's behavior must be models to society in proper behaviour. Like most of us competitive players that get pissed off on the court we let it out and sometimes it crosses a line. I have seen Luke Jensen smack a ball as hard as he could at the fence in a USO double match with Murphy and scream at the top of his lungs the F word. Oh yeah we can say that his behaviour was inappropriate and he could have killed somebody bla bla bla. All the Djoker haters got what they wanted. He lost the points and the cash. Happy now?
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
McEnroe was denied Wimbledon honorary membership after his 1981 win (something that hadn’t happened before -or since- IIRC) due to his behavior. Does anyone other than tennis historians remember that? Heck, Jmac is now remembered as a “colorful” player and not as a brat that was constantly in trouble.
Yep, SW has had many worse moments.
 
Top