Djokovic will have to do it himself - Winning RG

Djokovic blew big chances to win the French in 2009, 2011, and this year. He should have won atleast 1 French Opens already, if not 2. He could have easily left Federer with 0 French Opens still in 2009. 2010 he didnt really have a chance, but shouldnt have lost to Melzer, and in 2012 he even got himself into the final but couldnt keep the momentum going. He has nobody to blame but himself for the most part.
 
At the very least, Nole has begun to improve his consistency at RG, reaching the semis or the finals now for 3 consecutive years, which isn't too bad actually, not too bad at all. RG beckons if he can club Nadal to the face with a full sized tank before their future RG clashes. What I wonder is, will Nadal and Novak decline at roughly the same time, or will Nole last longer and see an extended window of opportunity once Nadal looks like tennis' equivalent of Madonna.
 
Nadal will eventually slow down. Nole has plenty more opportunities to win a French. Eventually he will manage one. Hes too good not to

You have to figure Nadal has a good two more solid years left. Nole has a good 3-5.
 
90's Clay said:
Nadal will eventually slow down. Nole has plenty more opportunities to win a French. Eventually he will manage one. Hes too good not to

You have to figure Nadal has a good two more solid years left. Nole has a good 3-5.
Click to expand...

Probably, probably, but we'll see.
 
I lol at people who say Federer got lucky to win Roland Garros, when what he really did is make finals there year after year until he got a better match-up opportunity. Too bad Djokovic didn't get lucky enough to make all those finals. How is that luck when no one else was good enough to make 5 finals in 6 years, other than Nadal himself? This implies that you don't deserve to win a single clay court slam unless you are the best clay courter ever. I guess Kuerten got lucky to win RG at all, then, because he never faced Nadal either.

And by the same standard, Nadal was super-lucky to win on hard courts considering how inconsistent he's been there in comparison. Might as well just always give credit where it's due, i.e. when someone wins a title.
 
ledwix said:
I lol at people who say Federer got lucky to win Roland Garros, when what he really did is make finals there year after year until he got a better match-up opportunity. Too bad Djokovic didn't get lucky enough to make all those finals. How is that luck when no one else was good enough to make 5 finals in 6 years, other than Nadal himself? This implies that you don't deserve to win a single clay court slam unless you are the best clay courter ever. I guess Kuerten got lucky to win RG at all, then, because he never faced Nadal either.

And by the same standard, Nadal was super-lucky to win on hard courts considering how inconsistent he's been there in comparison. Might as well just always give credit where it's due, i.e. when someone wins a title.
Click to expand...
Lucky in the sense that Nadal got taken out by Soderling, of all people. Not lucky in that he made the final, since he's proven he can do well there. No-one in the right mind (that may exclude quite a lot of people / accounts here) would say Federer didn't earn his RG. If Roddick won Wimbledon 2009 because Federer lost early to some yet-to-be-established player, I'm sure people would agree luck played a part of it, since he would've lost like he did IRL had he met Federer in the finals. Same story with RG 2009.

Who knows if Federer could've beaten Nadal in 2009 of course, but it's not unlike Nadal being lucky that Federer took out Djokovic in 2011.

Kuerten isn't a good example because he was pretty much done by the time Nadal started (I think?).

People do say Nadal was lucky he won the USO; that he didn't have to face Federer or Djokovic 2.0. I don't fully agree, but it's not outlandish when I think about it.

Tl;dr: just because people say Federer was lucky to win RG 2009 doesn't necessarily mean he didn't earn it or deserve it.

Disclaimer: your experience may differ from my interpretation.
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Nadal will eventually slow down. Nole has plenty more opportunities to win a French. Eventually he will manage one. Hes too good not to

You have to figure Nadal has a good two more solid years left. Nole has a good 3-5.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe Nadal will last longer than Djokovic on clay.
 
You could argue that Federer in his prime was unlucky to face Nadal in peak clayGod mode for so many years in a row while peak Djokovic has faced a subpar Rafa (coming off an extended break, no less), basically chance after chance he has not taken yet.
 
5555 said:
Winning Percentage On Clay (Open Era)

1. Rafael Nadal .933
2. Bjorn Borg .863
3. Ivan Lendl .814
4. Guillermo Vilas .798
5. Ken Rosewall .793
6. Jimmy Connors .779
7. Ilie Nastase .776
8. Jose-Luis Clerc .774
9. Rod Laver .773
10. Novak Djokovic .771
11. Roger Federer .770

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Clay-Career-List.aspx
Click to expand...

Just goes to show that Jimmy Connors is more deserving of a RG title than Novak Djokovic. Would you like to know if this is a fact or an opinion?
 
Spider said:
I am not so sure about that. I think he definitely wins 06 and 07 (apart from 09) but I think Puerta beats him in 05, And Djokovic in 08 and 11 (if they played in the final).
Click to expand...

What?! Federer beat Djokovic in 2011 in the FO. You really think playing in the finals would have made a difference? Other than Nadal, how many people have beaten Federer in the final of a slam?
 
In their 5 meetings, has Djokovic ever held serve for an entire set at Roland Garros vs Nadal?

See, when they were in the 5th set, when Djokovic was up 2-0 and 4-2, I was sure Nadal was going to break serve because I could not remember Djokovic ever holding serve for an entire set at Roland Garros vs Nadal.
 
Djokovic has had the same problems in RG (and in clay in general) that Federer had: Rafael Nadal.

It doesn't matter if they lose to him in the final or in the SF. For example, Roger has lost to Nadal 5 times at RG: four times in the final and once in the SF (and four times it was in the final just because they were nº1 and nº2 in the rankings; had Nadal been nº3 and had they faced in the SF, Federer would have lost to Nadal in 4 SF and one final instead at RG), and Djokovic has lost to Nadal also 5 times at RG: three times in SF, once in the final and once in QF.

Also both Federer and Djokovic have played 10 times against Nadal in M-1000 on clay:

Federer has played 9 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning two) and 1 SF (he lost).

Djokovic has played 7 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning three), 2 SF (he lost both) and 1 QF (he lost)


So curiously enough, both Federer and Djokovic have played against Nadal five times each at RG, and ten times each in M-1000 clay tournaments. The only reason Federer has faced Nadal more times in the finals ( 4 at RG + 9 in M-1000 clay, whereas Djokovic-Nadal finals have been 1 at RG + 7 in M-1000 clay) is that the majority of the time Federer and Nadal were nº1 and nº2 players in the rankings, so they could only face each other in the finals. But had Federer had to play Nadal in some more SF (instead of finals) and he would have lost anyway.


Federer has won 6 M-1000 tournaments on clay. Only in two of them he had to beat Nadal (in three of the other four, Nadal wasn't playing, and in Madrid 2012 Nadal lost early).

Djokovic has won 4 M-1000 tournaments on clay. In three of them he defeated Nadal in the final (in the other one, 2008 Rome, Nadal had blisters and lost in the first round).


So both Federer and Djokovic have been quite equally good on clay (the best two players on clay, behind Nadal) and Nadal has been the only one who defeated them once and again and again and again so many times in the last rounds of important tournaments on clay.


The only HUGE difference between Federer and Djokovic on clay is that Federer was able to win RG in the only one year that Nadal lost a match (to Soderling), whereas Djokovic that same year lost to Kohlsreiber. On the other hand Djokovic has been closer to defeating Nadal in RG than Federer ever was.


And Djokovic is still just 26....so he has time to win RG one day (will he? nobody knows).


The main difference with respect to Federer is that Djokovic knows perfectly well that he indeed can defeat Nadal in RG. Even though he was a bit up and down during his SF match, he was leading 3-1 and 30-0 (on Nadal's serve), close to being 2 breaks up, in the fifth, and then was one point away from a 5-3 lead in the fifth, finally losing 9-7. You can't get any closer than that and still lose. He knows he can defeat Nadal in RG.
 
5555 said:
You've stated that Connors is more deserving of a RG title than Djokovic due to better winning percentage on clay.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely and utterly irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement. One could be implicating you in what one presumes is your angle, or one could just be stating one's own actual opinion. You've immediately attributed my response primarily to yourself rather than considering the possibility that it is just my view. You need to be much less hasty when presenting your opinions to responses based on previously stated facts. PS, I'm a big fan of facts and opinions. PPS, your conclusion only had a 50% chance of being accurate (unless there are further options that have yet to be revealed to our own conscious awareness).
 
Spider said:
I don't think he will be as lucky as Federer was in 2009. Who could be the Soderling for Djokovic? We all know beating Nadal at RG is probably the biggest challenge in all of sports today.

He is getting closer and closer and in my opinion he has already surpassed Federer as the seconde best clay court player of this era.

He just needs to believe he can do it and be very consistent for over 5 hours. He might just do it next time.
Click to expand...

I actually think the scoreline flattered Djokovic a little recently. In all reality that was a 4 set match in terms of the tennis played, stats, winners vs UE's, etc. He stole the 4th set a little. I still think there was an enduring mental issue Nadal had to overcome which played on his mind in that 4th set, but he overcame it in the 5th. So I am not so sure Djokovic is any closer actually, at least not on that showing. He was comprehensively outplayed for much of the match.

A match up on grass will tell us more about who really has the upper hand now.
 
mattennis said:
Djokovic has had the same problems in RG (and in clay in general) that Federer had: Rafael Nadal.

It doesn't matter if they lose to him in the final or in the SF. For example, Roger has lost to Nadal 5 times at RG: four times in the final and once in the SF (and four times it was in the final just because they were nº1 and nº2 in the rankings; had Nadal been nº3 and had they faced in the SF, Federer would have lost to Nadal in 4 SF and one final instead at RG), and Djokovic has lost to Nadal also 5 times at RG: three times in SF, once in the final and once in QF.

Also both Federer and Djokovic have played 10 times against Nadal in M-1000 on clay:

Federer has played 9 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning two) and 1 SF (he lost).

Djokovic has played 7 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning three), 2 SF (he lost both) and 1 QF (he lost)


So curiously enough, both Federer and Djokovic have played against Nadal five times each at RG, and ten times each in M-1000 clay tournaments. The only reason Federer has faced Nadal more times in the finals ( 4 at RG + 9 in M-1000 clay, whereas Djokovic-Nadal finals have been 1 at RG + 7 in M-1000 clay) is that the majority of the time Federer and Nadal were nº1 and nº2 players in the rankings, so they could only face each other in the finals. But had Federer had to play Nadal in some more SF (instead of finals) and he would have lost anyway.


Federer has won 6 M-1000 tournaments on clay. Only in two of them he had to beat Nadal (in three of the other four, Nadal wasn't playing, and in Madrid 2012 Nadal lost early).

Djokovic has won 4 M-1000 tournaments on clay. In three of them he defeated Nadal in the final (in the other one, 2008 Rome, Nadal had blisters and lost in the first round).


So both Federer and Djokovic have been quite equally good on clay (the best two players on clay, behind Nadal) and Nadal has been the only one who defeated them once and again and again and again so many times in the last rounds of important tournaments on clay.


The only HUGE difference between Federer and Djokovic on clay is that Federer was able to win RG in the only one year that Nadal lost a match (to Soderling), whereas Djokovic that same year lost to Kohlsreiber. On the other hand Djokovic has been closer to defeating Nadal in RG than Federer ever was.


And Djokovic is still just 26....so he has time to win RG one day (will he? nobody knows).


The main difference with respect to Federer is that Djokovic knows perfectly well that he indeed can defeat Nadal in RG. Even though he was a bit up and down during his SF match, he was leading 3-1 and 30-0 (on Nadal's serve), close to being 2 breaks up, in the fifth, and then was one point away from a 5-3 lead in the fifth, finally losing 9-7. You can't get any closer than that and still lose. He knows he can defeat Nadal in RG.
Click to expand...

Again I have to completely disagree with that. Djokovic was outplayed for large parts of that match, including almost the whole 5th set. It should have been a 4 set win for Nadal which is about right in terms of their respective abilities on clay. Credit to Djokovic's fight and endurance that he took it to 5, but he was never going to win it with the stats he posted. 5 sets flattered him in my view.
 
pds999 said:
I actually think the scoreline flattered Djokovic a little recently. In all reality that was a 4 set match in terms of the tennis played, stats, winners vs UE's, etc. He stole the 4th set a little. I still think there was an enduring mental issue Nadal had to overcome which played on his mind in that 4th set, but he overcame it in the 5th. So I am not so sure Djokovic is any closer actually, at least not on that showing. He was comprehensively outplayed for much of the match.

A match up on grass will tell us more about who really has the upper hand now.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I think.

It was hard for me to see Novak actually getting closer since Nadal made some uncharacteristic errors at crucial times. And if there were any vestiges of Nadal having an issue with Novak, much of that can be eliminated in future RG meetings, because Nadal has to know that he outplayed Djokovic overall.

I also want to go back and see what the scores were in the Nadal/Federer meetings at RG, because I remember a time when Federer kept saying that he was getting closer and at some point, that thought deteriorated.
 
5555 said:
Nathaniel_Near, you've not replied. I'm waiting...
Click to expand...

I actually said nothing about your intention. Your new angle is a non sequitur given that the initial statement you are asking about was my reference to my own initial statement in response to your tennis statistics. Instead you have misunderstood me and presumed that I was referring to one of your statements and not one of my own.

Also, how come you avoid answering questions that may or may not have reasonable grounds for undermining your logical integrity?


5555 You have lost the argument.
 
pds999 said:
Again I have to completely disagree with that. Djokovic was outplayed for large parts of that match, including almost the whole 5th set. It should have been a 4 set win for Nadal which is about right in terms of their respective abilities on clay. Credit to Djokovic's fight and endurance that he took it to 5, but he was never going to win it with the stats he posted. 5 sets flattered him in my view.
Click to expand...

But he still had his chance to win, and he should know he can do it whether 5 sets flattered him or not. I know Nadal won and you're all happy, but don't be stupid about it.
 
mattennis said:
Djokovic has had the same problems in RG (and in clay in general) that Federer had: Rafael Nadal.

It doesn't matter if they lose to him in the final or in the SF. For example, Roger has lost to Nadal 5 times at RG: four times in the final and once in the SF (and four times it was in the final just because they were nº1 and nº2 in the rankings; had Nadal been nº3 and had they faced in the SF, Federer would have lost to Nadal in 4 SF and one final instead at RG), and Djokovic has lost to Nadal also 5 times at RG: three times in SF, once in the final and once in QF.

Also both Federer and Djokovic have played 10 times against Nadal in M-1000 on clay:

Federer has played 9 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning two) and 1 SF (he lost).

Djokovic has played 7 M-1000 clay finals against Nadal (winning three), 2 SF (he lost both) and 1 QF (he lost)


So curiously enough, both Federer and Djokovic have played against Nadal five times each at RG, and ten times each in M-1000 clay tournaments. The only reason Federer has faced Nadal more times in the finals ( 4 at RG + 9 in M-1000 clay, whereas Djokovic-Nadal finals have been 1 at RG + 7 in M-1000 clay) is that the majority of the time Federer and Nadal were nº1 and nº2 players in the rankings, so they could only face each other in the finals. But had Federer had to play Nadal in some more SF (instead of finals) and he would have lost anyway.


Federer has won 6 M-1000 tournaments on clay. Only in two of them he had to beat Nadal (in three of the other four, Nadal wasn't playing, and in Madrid 2012 Nadal lost early).

Djokovic has won 4 M-1000 tournaments on clay. In three of them he defeated Nadal in the final (in the other one, 2008 Rome, Nadal had blisters and lost in the first round).


So both Federer and Djokovic have been quite equally good on clay (the best two players on clay, behind Nadal) and Nadal has been the only one who defeated them once and again and again and again so many times in the last rounds of important tournaments on clay.


The only HUGE difference between Federer and Djokovic on clay is that Federer was able to win RG in the only one year that Nadal lost a match (to Soderling), whereas Djokovic that same year lost to Kohlsreiber. On the other hand Djokovic has been closer to defeating Nadal in RG than Federer ever was.


And Djokovic is still just 26....so he has time to win RG one day (will he? nobody knows).


The main difference with respect to Federer is that Djokovic knows perfectly well that he indeed can defeat Nadal in RG. Even though he was a bit up and down during his SF match, he was leading 3-1 and 30-0 (on Nadal's serve), close to being 2 breaks up, in the fifth, and then was one point away from a 5-3 lead in the fifth, finally losing 9-7. You can't get any closer than that and still lose. He knows he can defeat Nadal in RG.
Click to expand...

tbh in 2006, 07 when nadal beat him, djokovic was not a threat to win the title ...

djokovic blew it vs the lesser players in 2009,10 vs kohlscreiber, melzer ... federer didn't in any of the years from 05-12 ...
 
malbaker86 said:
How? .779% isn't much of a difference than .770%
Click to expand...

29098273.jpg


(Referencing myself)
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
I actually said nothing about your intention.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes you did. You have said that what stated in my prevoius post is irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement.

Also, how come you avoid answering questions that may or may not have reasonable grounds for undermining your logical integrity?
Click to expand...

Which questions?

5555 You have lost the argument.
Click to expand...

No, I have not. The argument has not finished yet.
 
5555 said:
Oh, yes you did. You have said that what stated in my prevoius post is irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement.



Which questions?



No, I have not. The argument has not finished yet.
Click to expand...

You need to read the exchange again to understand that we are not on the same page about what is being discussed, namely that I was referencing my own first statement and not the statement about your statistics. I don't think you've grasped that yet. One can say well then I shouldn't have called the reference to my own statement the initial statement because it didn't technically come first, but that's neither here nor there as you've lost the complete thread of the exchanges and still aren't understanding my angle (which also primarily is one of trolldom).

Which questions -- the one's I've asked previously which were misconstrued for the above reasons. You're a bit too literal. The key point is what I've put in bold in the quote -- I was never referencing your statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathaniel_Near said:
Which questions -- the one's I've asked previously which were misconstrued for the above reasons. You're a bit too literal.
Click to expand...

You've asked just one question (the post #62), and I've answered it (the post #66).

You need to read the exchange again to understand that we are not on the same page about what is being discussed, namely that I was referencing my own first statement and not the statement about your statistics.
Click to expand...

In the post #66 I said:"You've stated that Connors is more deserving of a RG title than Djokovic due to better winning percentage on clay.". In the post #67 you replied: "This is absolutely and utterly irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement." Clearly, you've made the claim that what I stated in the post #66 is not proof that you came to the conclusion that my point in the post #59 was that Djokovic is more deserving of a RG title than Federer. You need to be much less hasty when presenting your arguments. My intention was not to provide proof, because my statement in the post #61 is an expression of opinion which means I've not put burden of proof on myself. I would've put burden of proof on myself if I've made an allegation of fact, but that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Nope. What I did was state that my statement made in post #60 is ''absolutely and utterly irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement." In other words, my initial statement, which I've tried to explain now on several occasions -- that you've misunderstood what I was referencing. I conceded that I should have made that clearer but I have still tried to explain several times now that what I wasn't doing was claiming that what you stated in post #66 doesn't provide grounds for a definitive understanding. What I was doing was claiming that post #60 doesn't give grounds for a definitive understanding for MY motive of issuing the post in the first place, due to lack of information. You made an expression of opinion in response to post #60 based on inferences of the post in conjunction with your statistics post. What I said was that my statement in post #60 actually doesn't provide a certain answer for the motive, and you can only guess, hence you asked a question that may or may not have been misplaced, and relies on your own interpretation of my post #60. If an interpretation is wrong and doesn't align with my initial motive, then from that point on the ensuing conversation can veer off on a tangent that is a non sequitur, which is the point I was trying to convey in my persistent trolling thereafter.

This also is why I asked why you haven't answered the question, because even though you have, I want a reformed answer in light of the clarifications of what post #67 truly entailed. As such, the answer became a non answer or shall we say, one that wasn't pertinent to my intended thread of debate.

PS, the burden of proof fad that runs rife these days is also a load of weapons grade BS in my opinion that people have latched onto in autopilot mode without really considering the philosophical worth of the axiom (and whether it is subject to change, rather than being held as an absolute form of understanding). But that's an aside, after all this is a tennis forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nadal Djokovic rivalry seems to hinge on Roland Garros. If Djokovic never beats Nadal at Roland Garros (and especially if Djokovic also doesn't win Roland Garros after a Soderling-type upset of Nadal), then Nadal has clearly won this career-long war. And Nadal leads 20-15 so far h2h, and 7-3 h2h at the slams. What a brilliant rivalry this has been.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
What I was doing was claiming that post #60 doesn't give grounds for a definitive understanding for MY motive of issuing the post in the first place, due to lack of information.
Click to expand...

I've not said that the post #60 gives grounds for a definitive proof for your motive.
 
We already know that, it was established about 5 years ago, it doesn't even pertain to the exchange. I did say that I said it, that #60 doesn't give gr. though, whether you said it or not actually impacts none of what this exchange has actually entailed, it's just another non issue. Fascinating exchange, mind, and wonderful times.

Email correspondence? I can't pass up this opportunity.
 
5555 said:
Well, in that case, you indirectly admit that your statement "This is absolutely and utterly irrelevant in terms of providing a definitive proof of motive and reason for the initial statement" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But if so, that's absolutely fine, the whole exchange is a beautiful exhibition of irrelevancy in trolling. A fine art, much like Djokovic's overhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skypadq
what have do to djokovic win agianst nadal at RG 2020 FINAL ?
Replies
47
Views
2K
StrongRule
S
skypadq
2020 RG will be thiem 's biggest chance to winning slam
Replies
11
Views
669
netlets
netlets
Atennisone
Is Rublev or Thiem, biggest threat to Djokovic #19 at RG?
Replies
32
Views
2K
blablavla
B
M
Thiem will end up winning RG
Replies
6
Views
727
Sentinel
Sentinel
skypadq
is it 100 % to say novak djokovic will get SF in 2021 RG ?
Replies
41
Views
2K
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Back
Top