Madrid 2011 F: [2] Novak Djokovic (SRB) vs. [1] Rafael Nadal (ESP)

[ALL IN]

Nadal in 2

I expect Nadal to stand 10 foot behind the baseline returning serve,just as he did against Federer to negate any chance of Novak getting many free points on serve.

Nadal will grind him down, and Djokovic will have to start pressing to hit winners earlier in the rallies. He doesn't hit big enough on clay to push Nadal.

Right..........................

 

[ViscaB]

People saying Nadal doesn't evolve are far besides the point. The whole reason he has been beating Federer consistently was his ability to adapt his game and bring it to a higher level. The problem now only is that he needs to change his focus to another player Djokovic who even in his earlier years came closer to Nadal on clay than Federer ever did. Any Nadal fan will acknowledge that Djokovic is an amazing player. But please let him win a few more GS before mentioning him in the same breadth as Federer and Nadal. He needs to win at least one of the big two first (RG and Wimbledon).

In some ways losing to Djokovic in Madrid on clay might be a good starting point for Nadal to work on his game before Paris. It reminds me a bit of FC Barcelona versus Real Madrid. Madrid won the Cup final in Spain but after that Barcelona adopted their game and tactics. We all now how Madrid only had 3 shots on goal in the 2 CL ties that followed....

 

[JumpSmash]

Good grief! He lost a clay tournament for what time in seventh time in six years, and people are writing his obituary.

Madrid has always been his worst clay court tournament, he's not in good form. Things happens.

All of this melodrama is getting ridiculous.


He hasn't been in great form all year. We could probably go back to last year when he didn't win before Monte Carlo and read the same old $@#.

The usual trolls, pessimists, fake fedfans, and fake objective posters spewing the same old crap.

It was a darn tennis match, not the end of the world!

Sorry, had to get that off my chest!

What you have said is so true! I'm glad someone is speaking out about all the ridiculous pessimism and negative talk about Rafa. You would think he has just announced his retirement or suffered a career ending injury! :shock: I think all this ridiculous talk is a defense mechanism for Rafa fans who fear Novak is going to dethrone the King of clay. While this could happen, it has not occurred yet. Nadal is still pretty much unbeatable on clay and will be the clear favorite at Rome and RG.

 

[JumpSmash]

You're not factoring in the trajectory of a typical flat stroke as opposed to Nadal's forehand, often called a moonball... for a reason

That's not the issue here. Both have parabolic trajectories with Nadal's ground strokes having a larger initial angle. It is well known that to improve the percentage of success in your ground strokes, you need to apply top spin. It is a simple application of Bernoulli's principle in fluid mechanics. Nadal applies more spin than anyone else in history. At higher altitudes, the thinner air applies less drag on the ball causing it to fly faster through the air. This makes flat strokes more risky. In these conditions, the application of top spin is even more critical to bring the ball back down within the lines of the court. Hence, Nadal's "moon ball" strokes with lots of top spin are actually safer than Novak's flat CC BH.

 

[NamRanger]

I like the one about being a one-trick pony with a trick that worked for six years, snagged 5 RG's, and 81 match winning streak, doing the French-Wimbledon double for the first time in thirty years, having a perfect clay court season, and I hate to say it, but having a 2/1 ratio in h2h over someone many proclaim as being the "GOAT" with just one trick.

Now that is hilarious. Must be one $#&& of a trick.

Where did I say Nadal's one trick was bad? I said that he is one hell of a one dimensional player. Never did I say that he wasn't a good player; I just said that he's one dimensional in that if you can stop his one dimensional play, he has nothing to fall back on (literally nothing, he is clueless what to do if he can't break your backhand down).

 

[rafan]

People saying Nadal doesn't evolve are far besides the point. The whole reason he has been beating Federer consistently was his ability to adapt his game and bring it to a higher level. The problem now only is that he needs to change his focus to another player Djokovic who even in his earlier years came closer to Nadal on clay than Federer ever did. Any Nadal fan will acknowledge that Djokovic is an amazing player. But please let him win a few more GS before mentioning him in the same breadth as Federer and Nadal. He needs to win at least one of the big two first (RG and Wimbledon).

In some ways losing to Djokovic in Madrid on clay might be a good starting point for Nadal to work on his game before Paris. It reminds me a bit of FC Barcelona versus Real Madrid. Madrid won the Cup final in Spain but after that Barcelona adopted their game and tactics. We all now how Madrid only had 3 shots on goal in the 2 CL ties that followed....

Nadal hates defeat. He will come back. The world doesn't allow off days in sport but as a fan I have seen it with him like this before. Not to mention a lot of the others on the tour!

 

[TheTruth]

Where did I say Nadal's one trick was bad? I said that he is one hell of a one dimensional player. Never did I say that he wasn't a good player; I just said that he's one dimensional in that if you can stop his one dimensional play, he has nothing to fall back on (literally nothing, he is clueless what to do if he can't break your backhand down).

Didn't say you said it was bad. But one trick and doing all that? Even over the "GOAT?" Taking six slams from him on three different surfaces? That doesn't make sense. I could see if you were talking about Roddick's one-dimension, and counting his lack of accomplishments, then I would agree with you.

But there is no such thing as a nine-time major winner who's one-dimensional I don't care how you slice it. That dog ain't hunting. Either that, or the entire tour is stupid if they allowed it for so long.

This new revelation totally clears up the "GOAT" talk, because this would be the first time in history that a player with one trick managed to dupe the entire field with a presiding "GOAT."

Your argument basically says everyone on tour is stupid, but those who beat this one-trick pony are suddenly elevated to iconic status. How? Why? He's only got one trick. Baffling.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe the stuff you write? It's so hilarious. Most times I try not to say anything, but posts like this just border on the ridiculous and only the feeble minded are fooled.

For ex: These are some "truths" I learned on TTW today:

A 9-time slam winner is a one trick pony.

A 2-time slam winner is elevated to god-like status.

A serve only player like Roddick really isn't one-dimensional with his 7-year old major, oops I meant 9-year.

H2h doesn't matter unless it's to excuse Federer h2h against Nadal on clay (his results against the field are excused).

Nadal's h2h doesn't matter because it's against one person (Fed)(the field is not excused). Ignore that other than Davydenko and maybe a retired player from when he was 16 he has a positive h2h against everyone else.

Nadal has 9-2 majors vs. the "King" and a 16-10 h2h, but somehow after five months of play Novak is never going to lose. In tennis? Really?

Either you don't know what one-dimensional is, or you're pulling my leg. I'm going to go with the latter because nothing you've said makes any sense, imo.

Nadal lost his first match on clay in two years, he'll never win another major.

Djokovic who has been reviled for years on this board is now an international hero. Previously, Rovex was the only known *********, and boy did he pay for it.

Sorry, can't take you seriously, not if you're going to post stuff like this.

 

[NamRanger]

Didn't say you said it was bad. But one trick and doing all that? Even over the "GOAT?" Taking six slams from him on three different surfaces? That doesn't make sense. I could see if you were talking about Roddick's one-dimension, and counting his lack of accomplishments, then I would agree with you.

But there is no such thing as a nine-time major winner who's one-dimensional I don't care how you slice it. That dog ain't hunting. Either that, or the entire tour is stupid if they allowed it for so long.

This new revelation totally clears up the "GOAT" talk, because this would be the first time in history that a player with one trick managed to dupe the entire field with a presiding "GOAT."

Your argument basically says everyone on tour is stupid, but those who beat this one-trick pony are suddenly elevated to iconic status. How? Why? He's only got one trick. Baffling.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe the stuff you write? It's so hilarious. Most times I try not to say anything, but posts like this just border on the ridiculous and only the feeble minded are fooled.

For ex: These are some "truths" I learned on TTW today:

A 9-time slam winner is a one trick pony.

A 2-time slam winner is elevated to god-like status.

A serve only player like Roddick really isn't one-dimensional with his 7-year old major, oops I meant 9-year.

H2h doesn't matter unless it's to excuse Federer h2h against Nadal on clay (his results against the field are excused).

Nadal's h2h doesn't matter because it's against one person (Fed)(the field is not excused). Ignore that other than Davydenko and maybe a retired player from when he was 16 he has a positive h2h against everyone else.

Nadal has 9-2 majors vs. the "King" and a 16-10 h2h, but somehow after five months of play Novak is never going to lose. In tennis? Really?

Either you don't know what one-dimensional is, or you're pulling my leg. I'm going to go with the latter because nothing you've said makes any sense, imo.

Nadal lost his first match on clay in two years, he'll never win another major.

Djokovic who has been reviled for years on this board is now an international hero. Previously, Rovex was the only known *********, and boy did he pay for it.

Sorry, can't take you seriously, not if you're going to post stuff like this.

Agassi won 8 slams and is one dimensional. You gonna tell me Agassi is an allcourt multidimensional player? Give me a break.


Nadal is one dimensional. Period. He has one dimension to his game, and that's to camp behind the baseline and play defense with high margin of error with his topspin. If you take away his only weapon, which is his crosscourt forehand, he loses, period. Every time.

Never once did I say Roddick wasn't one dimensional. Please do show me where I stated that in this thread. For a person with a name called "TheTruth," you sure do spout alot of bs.


If Djokovic can somehow maintain his level of play against Nadal, I don't see how Nadal can beat him. Djokovic is the only person in the world who has the tools to beat Nadal. He also uses said tools extremely well when facing Nadal.


Djokovic was drilled on this board because he was a jackass at the beginning of his career spouting of a bunch of nonsense that he was going to be the big bad wolf now that he won one slam with alot of help from lady luck. His ego was huge beyond belief, especially considering he wasn't even world #1 at the time.

Once his humongous inflated ego was deflated, he started to realize that getting to the top is one thing; staying at the top is another. He changed his attitude, worked harder, became more humble, and kept plugging away despite bad results due to him tinkering with his game so much. So yes, people have a change of heart because Djokovic legitimately changed. After his Australian Open win against Murray he didn't act like some punk kid like his previous AO victory over Tsonga. He also has learned to maintain a better image, and he no longer utilizes unsportsman like tactics that are borderline cheating.

So yeah, taking into consideration of all that, it is pretty easy to see why people are beginning to like Djokovic. Before, he was a total jackass. Now, he's a guy that is playing on fire, beating literally everyone, but still doesn't go off spouting off the wrong stuff like he used to. He also doesn't bad manner people with his 500 ball bouncing anymore, nor does he utilize unsportsman like tactics like injury timeouts in order to ice his opponents. Alot about him has indeed changed, and for the better.



Two, I know for a fact that you don't play tennis because I guarantee you couldn't tell me how to hit a kick serve properly from the top of your head without looking it up. The fact that you even question whether or not I know what is a one dimensional player is hilarious, considering you are totally ignorant about tennis in general and follow Nadal like he is your god.

A one dimensional player is only exceptionally good at one thing. Nothing about Nadal's game is exceptional except his defense. His offense is above average, serve is above average, volleys about average. Backhand wise, very good for defense, mediocre offensive wise for the most part (mainly because he only goes one direction with it). His forehand is the only "exceptional" shot he has. Aided with some of the best footwork in the game (only matched by prime Federer), he is one of the most difficult players on the tour to beat.

The funniest part is how riled up you Nadal fans get when people call Nadal one dimensional. There have been plenty of one dimensional champions that have won a multitude of slams. Agassi is the most notable, a guy who literally does not change his gameplan no matter what once he starts a match. Lleyton Hewitt, fairly one dimensional. Bjorn Borg on clay, the ultimate moonballer. Ivan Lendl, the baseline machine. So on and so forth.

 

[namelessone]

A

The funniest part is how riled up you Nadal fans get when people call Nadal one dimensional. There have been plenty of one dimensional champions that have won a multitude of slams. Agassi is the most notable, a guy who literally does not change his gameplan no matter what once he starts a match. Lleyton Hewitt, fairly one dimensional. Bjorn Borg on clay, the ultimate moonballer. Ivan Lendl, the baseline machine. So on and so forth.

Next thing you're gonna say is that Sampras was "all serve" and this "one dimension" won him his 14 slams

 

[NamRanger]

Next thing you're gonna say is that Sampras was "all serve" and this "one dimension" won him his 14 slams

Please explain how Lendl or Agassi were multidimensional players. Better yet, explain how Bjorn Borg on clay was an allcourt player?


Sampras was an allcourt player early in his career, but as his career progressed on he started to heavily rely on his serve, particularly in the 2000s when he had clearly lost a step and could no longer play his original game before. Wouldn't say he was a one dimensional player, but he certainly became more "focused" on a particular area of his game. He won alot of slams utilizing the entire court, baseline, net, defense, serve and volley, etc. He certainly did alot more than Agassi, who for the most part literally did percentage serves for most of his career, and then just started to whail on the ball the second he could.


But hey, don't let me destroy you in an argument about what is one dimensional and what isn't one dimensional. Keep on believing that Nadal has the allcourt skills of Rod Laver.

 

[TheTruth]

Agassi won 8 slams and is one dimensional. You gonna tell me Agassi is an allcourt multidimensional player? Give me a break.


Nadal is one dimensional. Period. He has one dimension to his game, and that's to camp behind the baseline and play defense with high margin of error with his topspin. If you take away his only weapon, which is his crosscourt forehand, he loses, period. Every time.

Never once did I say Roddick wasn't one dimensional. Please do show me where I stated that in this thread. For a person with a name called "TheTruth," you sure do spout alot of bs.

If Djokovic can somehow maintain his level of play against Nadal, I don't see how Nadal can beat him. Djokovic is the only person in the world who has the tools to beat Nadal. He also uses said tools extremely well when facing Nadal.


Djokovic was drilled on this board because he was a jackass at the beginning of his career spouting of a bunch of nonsense that he was going to be the big bad wolf now that he won one slam with alot of help from lady luck. His ego was huge beyond belief, especially considering he wasn't even world #1 at the time.

Once his humongous inflated ego was deflated, he started to realize that getting to the top is one thing; staying at the top is another. He changed his attitude, worked harder, became more humble, and kept plugging away despite bad results due to him tinkering with his game so much.



Two, I know for a fact that you don't play tennis because I guarantee you couldn't tell me how to hit a kick serve properly from the top of your head without looking it up.

No. For a person whose name is The Truth, that's exactly what you get, the truth.

I never said you called Roddick one-dimensional, but that's exactly who you should go after when you talk about someone being one dimensional and having an over-inflated ego. And he isn't the only one (hint, hint).

Now you say Agassi is one-dimensional? How many times have you said that about Agassi and Roddick on this board, since you don't consider it a bad thing. Never in the threads I've seen. Get real!

All you do is go after Nadal and have ever since I've been on the board. So spare me your bs, because that's all it is.

Djokovic has been drilled on this board all of the time I was here, until he beat Fed and Nadal 3x each. So, now he's no longer a jackass? In the last few months all has been forgiven? Rovex hasn't even been here that long and he was standing alone. Now he has a legion of supporters? True fans, or embittered tag alongers?

And you accuse me of spouting bs? Don't make me laugh.

But, just in case I'm wrong I'll go back and see what you've said on the subject of Agassi, Roddick, and Djokovic in the past, because my limited memory only knows you strictly as a Nadal hater.

And it's old and tired.

 

[NamRanger]

No. For a person whose name is The Truth, that's exactly what you get, the truth.

I never said you called Roddick one-dimensional, but that's exactly who you should go after when you talk about someone being one dimensional and having an over-inflated ego. And he isn't the only one (hint, hint).

Now you say Agassi is one-dimensional? How many times have you said that about Agassi and Roddick on this board, since you don't consider it a bad thing. Never in the threads I've seen. Get real!

All you do is go after Nadal and have ever since I've been on the board. So spare me your bs, because that's all it is.

Djokovic has been drilled on this board all of the time I was here, until he beat Fed and Nadal 3x each. So, now he's no longer a jackass? In the last few months all has been forgiven? Rovex hasn't even been here that long and he was standing alone. Now he has a legion of supporters? True fans, or embittered tag alongers?

And you accuse me of spouting bs? Don't make me laugh.

But, just in case I'm wrong I'll go back and see what you've said on the subject of Agassi, Roddick, and Djokovic in the past, because my limited memory only knows you strictly as a Nadal hater.

And it's old and tired.

LOL; so you get rocked in an argument about what is one dimensional and you start to change the subject and try to personally insult me.



Indeed, the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time. Just stop; you got totally beat down and there's nothing you can do about it. Read any of his post interviews lately? Despite the fact that he is literally crushing the entire world of tennis at the moment, he still doesn't talk about any future ambitions like he previously did after winning the AO in 2008. That shows that he's learned to hold his tongue at least. The way he carries himself is totally different. He has clearly matured, and he has learned to be humble.


That should be clear to anyone who plays tennis and isn't a straight up hater of the guy. I didn't like him at all before because he was a total jackass who had an overly inflated ego. And I'm not talking about throwing tantrums on the court (which Roddick is notorious for). I'm talking about putting crowds down because they are supporting their home player, or utilizing unsportsman like tactics (and admitting to it too). He no longer does any of the things he did in the past, and thus he isn't viewed as a bad guy anymore.


But hey what do I know. I'm just a guy who has no vested interest in any of the top players right now. And no, I don't hate Nadal. I just get annoyed by his fans who think that he never loses if he is playing well.



Djokovic got drilled for months on end because he was being a huge jackass. He changed. People stopped hating him. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[namelessone]

I disagree, I think if you look at youtube clips of Nadal from 2004 to 2006 or even 2007 you will notice an improved player who adapted very well to the faster surfaces. He has a winning record over most guys because of that ability. If he didn't adapt he wouldn't have won anything more than 2 or 3 French Opens.

I agree. I find it funny that Nadal did not adapt yet won so much.

Nadal from 2004-2005 was just a good forehand and a lot of running. His BH sucked big time and his serve was laughable. He was getting beat on HC a lot and not just by top players.

From 2007 onwards Nadal started to improve his game, his BH was much improved, he started adding a slice(a mediocre one but still) to his repertoire and the serve got bigger.

It's no coincidence that once he added these things he started making headway into AO and USO and last year made his first TMC final, his serve bailing his ass out many times against guys like roddick or murray.

 

[TheTruth]

Agassi won 8 slams and is one dimensional. You gonna tell me Agassi is an allcourt multidimensional player? Give me a break.


Nadal is one dimensional. Period. He has one dimension to his game, and that's to camp behind the baseline and play defense with high margin of error with his topspin. If you take away his only weapon, which is his crosscourt forehand, he loses, period. Every time.

Never once did I say Roddick wasn't one dimensional. Please do show me where I stated that in this thread. For a person with a name called "TheTruth," you sure do spout alot of bs.


If Djokovic can somehow maintain his level of play against Nadal, I don't see how Nadal can beat him. Djokovic is the only person in the world who has the tools to beat Nadal. He also uses said tools extremely well when facing Nadal.


Djokovic was drilled on this board because he was a jackass at the beginning of his career spouting of a bunch of nonsense that he was going to be the big bad wolf now that he won one slam with alot of help from lady luck. His ego was huge beyond belief, especially considering he wasn't even world #1 at the time.

Once his humongous inflated ego was deflated, he started to realize that getting to the top is one thing; staying at the top is another. He changed his attitude, worked harder, became more humble, and kept plugging away despite bad results due to him tinkering with his game so much. So yes, people have a change of heart because Djokovic legitimately changed. After his Australian Open win against Murray he didn't act like some punk kid like his previous AO victory over Tsonga. He also has learned to maintain a better image, and he no longer utilizes unsportsman like tactics that are borderline cheating.

So yeah, taking into consideration of all that, it is pretty easy to see why people are beginning to like Djokovic. Before, he was a total jackass. Now, he's a guy that is playing on fire, beating literally everyone, but still doesn't go off spouting off the wrong stuff like he used to. He also doesn't bad manner people with his 500 ball bouncing anymore, nor does he utilize unsportsman like tactics like injury timeouts in order to ice his opponents. Alot about him has indeed changed, and for the better.



Two, I know for a fact that you don't play tennis because I guarantee you couldn't tell me how to hit a kick serve properly from the top of your head without looking it up. The fact that you even question whether or not I know what is a one dimensional player is hilarious, considering you are totally ignorant about tennis in general and follow Nadal like he is your god.

A one dimensional player is only exceptionally good at one thing. Nothing about Nadal's game is exceptional except his defense. His offense is above average, serve is above average, volleys about average. Backhand wise, very good for defense, mediocre offensive wise for the most part (mainly because he only goes one direction with it). His forehand is the only "exceptional" shot he has. Aided with some of the best footwork in the game (only matched by prime Federer), he is one of the most difficult players on the tour to beat.

The funniest part is how riled up you Nadal fans get when people call Nadal one dimensional. There have been plenty of one dimensional champions that have won a multitude of slams. Agassi is the most notable, a guy who literally does not change his gameplan no matter what once he starts a match. Lleyton Hewitt, fairly one dimensional. Bjorn Borg on clay, the ultimate moonballer. Ivan Lendl, the baseline machine. So on and so forth.

What kind of prerequisite is that? In order to watch tennis you have to know how to describe a kick serve? Are you serious? I select the programs that I want to watch. I don't have to participate in anything to enjoy it.

This may floor you, but I watch movies, even though I'm not an actress.

Sometimes I watch the Cooking Channel, but I'm not a real chef.

Oops, am I going to be banned from watching ID, because I'm not a forensic scientist?

Darn, I know I'm going to get in trouble here because I watch the Housewive Series and don't live in NYC, Orange County, Miami, or Atlanta.

Heck, I don't know what to do with my TV now. I had no idea you had to have credentials in order to watch it.

More bs. A kick serve. That's rich.

 

[NamRanger]

What kind of prerequisite is that? In order to watch tennis you have to know how to describe a kick serve? Are you serious? I select the programs that I want to watch. I don't have to participate in anything to enjoy it.

This may floor you, but I watch movies, even though I'm not an actress.

Sometimes I watch the Cooking Channel, but I'm not a real chef.

Oops, am I going to be banned from watching ID, because I'm not a forensic scientist?

Darn, I know I'm going to get in trouble here because I watch the Housewive Series and don't live in NYC, Orange County, Miami, or Atlanta.

Heck, I don't know what to do with my TV now. I had no idea you had to have credentials in order to watch it.

More bs. A kick serve. That's rich.

No, but I find it funny that a person that doesn't play tennis at all is trying to question the credentials of another person who actually does play tennis (at a fairly high level too on top of everything). But indeed, try keep running away from the arguments that I present to you. It only shows how ridiculous you actually are.

 

[TheTruth]

LOL; so you get rocked in an argument about what is one dimensional and you start to change the subject and try to personally insult me.



Indeed, the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in a very long time. Just stop; you got totally beat down and there's nothing you can do about it.



Djokovic got drilled for months on end because he was being a huge jackass. He changed. People stopped hating him. Coincidence? I think not.

That's your opinion, but to me nothing you've said makes sense. Your logic or lack of is truly amazing.


And talking about looking up a kick serve. To prove something to you? I'm well aware of your posting history. Have been for years.

I'm no Kreskin, but I saw you coming from a mile away.

 

[NamRanger]

That's your opinion, but to me nothing you've said makes sense. Your logic or lack of is truly amazing.


And talking about looking up a kick serve. To prove something to you? I'm well aware of your posting history. Have been for years.

I'm no Kreskin, but I saw you coming from a mile away.

Let me spell it out to you


1) Djokovic acts like jackass

2) Djokovic stops acting like jackass

3) Djokovic begins to win, people start to support him



Hmmmmm........ seems pretty reasonable to me.


Or how about this?

Agassi a one dimensional player (Most people would agree; great all surface player, but mostly one dimensional)

Borg on clay a fairly one dimensional player (Honestly, Borg was really good on clay, but man he was booooring to watch)

Lendl a fairly one dimensional player (Hardcore baseliner)


So what did I say that didn't make any sense? Explain to me. Indeed, I'd love for you to tell me how any of those players are "multi" dimensional players (we're only talking about Borg on clay btw, who is about as one dimensional as you can get).


Comparing yourself to Kreskin who is a straight up liar? Man, you sure do make the right choices.

 

[TheTruth]

No, but I find it funny that a person that doesn't play tennis at all is trying to question the credentials of another person who actually does play tennis (at a fairly high level too on top of everything). But indeed, try keep running away from the arguments that I present to you. It only shows how ridiculous you actually are.

Question your credentials? What credentials? Just because you say you're a highly trained tennis player I'm supposed to believe you? On an internet forum? Really? I guess your name is really NamRanger, huh?

You've never had any credibility with me so I don't care what you say about anything. I see you as an illogical poster who's always trying to instigate, so you're the last person I would listen if you even knew what the truth was.

And couldn't a tennis player be stupid? Most of them don't finish high school, so why would they be the authorities on anything? They simply hit the ball over the net.

It ain't rocket science, Nam, and wielding a racket means diddly.

 

[TheTruth]

Let me spell it out to you


1) Djokovic acts like jackass

2) Djokovic stops acting like jackass

3) Djokovic begins to win, people start to support him



Hmmmmm........ seems pretty reasonable to me.


Comparing yourself to Kreskin who is a straight up liar? Man, you sure do make the right choices.

Stop it. Djokovic just got the majority of his fans when he beat Nadal.

1,2, and 3 is a lie. But, it's no more than I expected from you.

 

[NamRanger]

Stop it. Djokovic just got the majority of his fans when he beat Nadal.

1,2, and 3 is a lie. But, it's no more than I expected from you.

Hold on....


Djokovic didn't admit to abusing injury timeouts against his supposedly close friend Gael Monfils at the USO? Djokovic didn't take over a minute while bouncing his ball up and down 50000000 times? Djokovic didn't trash the USO crowd for no reason just because he was angry at Roddick's comments? Oh, how could I forget. Djokovic stated that he was totally in control of a match that he retired from. Guess who that was against? Oh yeah; Nadal at the FO. LOL. Djokovic was getting soundly beat too might I add.



So Djokovic also didn't change his behavior? He still does all those things? Really? LOL. Man, this is real funny.

Question your credentials? What credentials? Just because you say you're a highly trained tennis player I'm supposed to believe you? On an internet forum? Really? I guess your name is really NamRanger, huh?

You've never had any credibility with me so I don't what you say about anything. I see you as an illogical poster who's always trying to instigate, so you're the last person I would listen if you even knew what the truth was.

And couldn't a tennis player be stupid? Most of them don't finish high school, so why would they be the authorities on anything? They simply hit the ball over the net.

It ain't rocket science, Nam, and wielding a racket means diddly.

Really shows how ignorant of a person you are, as most professional tennis coaches played NCAA tennis (at least in the U.S.), which means they graduated with a degree. I'm sure most European tennis pros are fairly well educated too. But hey, keep making those totally offensive blanket statements against virtually 99.9% of this forum. I'm sure that will bode well for you in the future.

In fact, there are only but a very few select players who even skip high school and try and immediately go pro. It's too big of a risk. Most U.S./European players tend to take the safer route to have a backup plan. It's very rare that high level tennis players actually take that big of a risk. The ones that do tend to be pretty good (you know, the Safins, Federers, Nadals of the world).

Tennis players would be authorities when it comes to talking about tennis. *Gasp* What sound logic. I play tennis, you don't. Pretty sure I would know what a one dimensional tennis player is, considering I actually play the game. It's amazing that you criticize me and send backhanded comments my way, when all I did was call Nadal a one dimensional player (because he really is). LOL.

 

[TheTruth]

No, but I find it funny that a person that doesn't play tennis at all is trying to question the credentials of another person who actually does play tennis (at a fairly high level too on top of everything). But indeed, try keep running away from the arguments that I present to you. It only shows how ridiculous you actually are.

I never said you said Roddick and Agassi weren't one-dimensional. I stated that if that's your opinion it's funny, because I've never seen you say it before today. All I ever see you do is rag on Nadal.

Now, what argument have you made that I ran away from?

Seriously, that is so funny. I don't know you. Why am I supposed to believe you and defer to your "knowledge?" This is the internet, Nam. Do you seriousy believe everything people post?

I don't recall seeing a bunch of intelligent posts that you've made. If I did I would have acknowledged it. People don't have to be on the same side as me for me to admit when they put out a good post.

I don't even think you're a good poster, so no, I would never "talk" to you without you initiating contact (it's you who do that). But for some reason you think I'm supposed to believe what you say? Hmm. Not going to happen.

Check the thread and see who started talking to who. As usual!

 

[NamRanger]

I never said you said Roddick and Agassi weren't one-dimensional. I stated that if that's your opinion it's funny, because I've never seen you say it before today. All I ever see you do is rag on Nadal.

Now, what argument have you made that I ran away from?

Seriously, that is so funny. I don't know you. Why am I supposed to believe you and defer to your "knowledge?" This is the internet, Nam. Do you seriousy believe everything people post?

I don't recall seeing a bunch of intelligent posts that you've made. If I did I would have acknowledged it. People don't have to be on the same side as me for me to admit when they put out a good post.

I don't even think you're a good poster, so no, I would never "talk" to you without you initiating contact (it's you who do that). But for some reason you think I'm supposed to believe what you say? Hmm. Not going to happen.

Check the thread and see who started talking to who. As usual!

Checked the thread. I said Nadal was one dimensional, you flipped. My actual intelligent posts are reserved for people who are actually intelligent (a.k.a. usually not people from this forum, especially Nadal worshipers like you). I tend to just pick on people like you because I think its hilarious how mad you get that someone dare calls Nadal a one dimensional player.


BTW you were the one who initiated contact first, because you were obviously upset that someone dare called Nadal a one dimensional player.

That's some kind of logic. Federer is not the only person in the draw. In order to get to Federer, Nadal had to beat some other players on the road to the final.

And what does that say about the tour, the strong era that Fed presided over, that a one-dimensional player could constantly go through draws and meet him in the final?

Stop it. Djokovic just got the majority of his fans when he beat Nadal.

1,2, and 3 is a lie. But, it's no more than I expected from you.

It's funny that you say that I'm lying, I post facts, and you totally disregard everything and just ignore it.

Hold on....


Djokovic didn't admit to abusing injury timeouts against his supposedly close friend Gael Monfils at the USO? Djokovic didn't take over a minute while bouncing his ball up and down 50000000 times? Djokovic didn't trash the USO crowd for no reason just because he was angry at Roddick's comments? Oh, how could I forget. Djokovic stated that he was totally in control of a match that he retired from. Guess who that was against? Oh yeah; Nadal at the FO. LOL. Djokovic was getting soundly beat too might I add.



So Djokovic also didn't change his behavior? He still does all those things? Really? LOL. Man, this is real funny.

Respond to this first. Everything I said is true. You're getting flat out destroyed right now. It's actually really funny.

 

[namelessone]

Djokovic got drilled for months on end because he was being a huge jackass. He changed. People stopped hating him. Coincidence? I think not.

Djoker was not being a jackass but he wasn't bowing down in awe of top players and actually had the stones to have a personality by doing impersonations and trying to have a cool and relaxed demenour out there.

I mean he was ripped for something his MOTHER said "the king is dead" about Fed.

He also had breathing issues and allergies but people were ripping into him for retiring cause of those even though it was CLEAR that they were affecting him PHYSICALLY.

Look at how he looks now that he has these things sorted out.

 

[TheTruth]

Hold on....


Djokovic didn't admit to abusing injury timeouts against his supposedly close friend Gael Monfils at the USO? Djokovic didn't take over a minute while bouncing his ball up and down 50000000 times? Djokovic didn't trash the USO crowd for no reason just because he was angry at Roddick's comments? Oh, how could I forget. Djokovic stated that he was totally in control of a match that he retired from. Guess who that was against? Oh yeah; Nadal at the FO. LOL. Djokovic was getting soundly beat too might I add.


So Djokovic also didn't change his behavior? He still does all those things? Really? LOL. Man, this is real funny.





Really shows how ignorant of a person you are, as most professional tennis coaches played NCAA tennis (at least in the U.S.), which means they graduated with a degree. I'm sure most European tennis pros are fairly well educated too. But hey, keep making those totally offensive blanket statements against virtually 99.9% of this forum. I'm sure that will bode well for you in the future.

In fact, there are only but a very few select players who even skip high school and try and immediately go pro. It's too big of a risk. Most U.S./European players tend to take the safer route to have a backup plan. It's very rare that high level tennis players actually take that big of a risk. The ones that do tend to be pretty good (you know, the Safins, Federers, Nadals of the world).

Tennis players would be authorities when it comes to talking about tennis. *Gasp* What sound logic. I play tennis, you don't. Pretty sure I would know what a one dimensional tennis player is, considering I actually play the game. It's amazing that you criticize me and send backhanded comments my way, when all I did was call Nadal a one dimensional player (because he really is). LOL.

Djokovic gained the majority of his fans very recently. Everyone on the boards knows that. There were very few Novak fans. Rovex is the only one who comes to mind. What mess are you trying to spin now?

Why are you trying to spin this into a why people disliked Djokovic? Stay on topic please.


So now I'm offending 99.9% of the forum because most tennis players don't finish school? That's a known fact. I'm talking pros, not NCAA. But that isn't even the point in question. The point is I don't know you personally to know that you even play tennis, and even if you did, I still wouldn't respect your opinion, knowing your posting history.

I think you're ignorant. Always have.

Again, you want me to take your word for it? A faceless, nameless poster on an internet board that I don't even talk to.

Oh, BTW, I created the internet. You believe me, don't you? After all, I said it, so it must be true, lol!

 

[NamRanger]

Djoker was not being a jackass but he wasn't bowing down in awe of top players and actually had the stones to have a personality by doing impersonations and trying to have a cool and relaxed demenour out there.

I mean he was ripped for something his MOTHER said "the king is dead" about Fed.

He also had breathing issues and allergies but people were ripping into him for retiring cause of those even though it was CLEAR that they were affecting him PHYSICALLY.

Look at how he looks now that he has these things sorted out.

Oh my god.



1) Djokovic in an interview clearly stated that he ABUSED a medical timeout against his friend Gael Monfils at the USO.

2) Djokovic stated that he was in control of a match that he was getting completely pummeled in. Clearly he wasn't joking either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SdfhhYJsJ8

3) Djokovic ragged on the USO crowd when clearly he had an issue with what Roddick said. There was absolutely no reason to provoke the crowd; if he had an issue with Roddick, he could have easily taken it into the locker room. Instead, he acts like a total fool and openly provokes a crowd that is notorious for being hostile.

4) Djokovic used to clearly break the time limit rule ON PURPOSE in order to ice his opponent. That is cheating and unsportsmanlike all at the same time. Not to mention Djokovic also used to clearly abuse the injury timeout. Taking into consideration that he openly admitted that he did it before, it's not a stretch to believe he wouldn't do it again.

5) Djokovic had an obviously over inflated ego after his AO win, thinking that he was gonna win everything in sight from that point on, and that Federer was basically non-existent. Guess how that turned out for him?




You honestly don't watch much tennis outside of Nadal if you think Djokovic wasn't viewed as a total jackass from 2007 to early 2009ish.



Oh, here's another link just to prove how much of a poor sportsman Djokovic really was

http://www.johnfmurray.com/index.php/news-events/gamesmanship-cheating-tennis

He OPENLY admits to abusing medical timeouts because he wasn't fit enough. Seriously? That's not a jackass? LOL.

 

[NamRanger]

Djokovic gained the majority of his fans very recently. Everyone on the boards knows that. There were very few Novak fans. Rovex is the only one who comes to mind. What mess are you trying to spin now?

Why are you trying to spin this into a why people disliked Djokovic? Stay on topic please.


So now I'm offending 99.9% of the forum because most tennis players don't finish school? That's a known fact. I'm talking pros, not NCAA. But that isn't even the point in question. The point is I don't know you personally to know that you even play tennis, and even if you did, I still wouldn't respect your opinion, knowing your posting history.

I think you're ignorant. Always have.

Again, you want me to take your word for it? A faceless, nameless poster on an internet board that I don't even talk to.

Oh, BTW, I created the internet. You believe me, don't you? After all, I said it, so it must be true, lol!

Horrible argument because

1) I can prove that you didn't

2) I can also prove that I play tennis, while also simultaneously proving that you don't (as you have admitted that you don't in the past).


But indeed, do continue.

 

[TheTruth]

Checked the thread. I said Nadal was one dimensional, you flipped. My actual intelligent posts are reserved for people who are actually intelligent (a.k.a. usually not people from this forum, especially Nadal worshipers like you). I tend to just pick on people like you because I think its hilarious how mad you get that someone dare calls Nadal a one dimensional player.


BTW you were the one who initiated contact first, because you were obviously upset that someone dare called Nadal a one dimensional player.



It's funny that you say that I'm lying, I post facts, and you totally disregard everything and just ignore it.





Respond to this first. Everything I said is true. You're getting flat out destroyed right now. It's actually really funny.

What facts? You just lied about Novak's sudden surge of fans. Coming up with all that old garbage. We can go back to 2010 and see what people were really saying, and you have the nerve to call someone a liar.

Surely you don't come out all guns blazing about the Roddick/Federer h2h. No, I'm sure that fits you just fine.

Thinly disguised Federer worshipper.

I'm having fun, too. I think you're an illogical ranter who looks for any reason to start fights on this board. That's your m.o., imo.

Maybe you can't see it, but you're all over the place with your "intelligence." I am cracking up over here.

 

[NamRanger]

What facts? You just lied about Novak's sudden surge of fans. Coming up with all that old garbage. We can go back to 2010 and see what people were really saying, and you have the nerve to call someone a liar.

Surely you don't come out all guns blazing about the Roddick/Federer h2h. No, I'm sure that fits you just fine.

Thinly disguised Federer worshipper.

I'm having fun, too. I think you're an illogical ranter who looks for any reason to start fights on this board. That's your m.o., imo.

Maybe you can't see it, but you're all over the place with your "intelligence." I am cracking up over here.

1) You stated that I lied about Djokovic's sudden surge of fans

2) I proved you wrong with facts (and links to boot!)

3) You respond by saying that I am just picking a fight, when you were the one who wants to pick the fight with me because I simply called Nadal one dimensional.


So.... how am I being illogical and ranting here? I'm pretty sure you're just ticked because I called Nadal one dimensional, but that could be just me. I dunno. I am enjoying beating you up and down this forum though proving you wrong time and time again.

 

[TheTruth]

Horrible argument because

1) I can prove that you didn't

2) I can also prove that I play tennis, while also simultaneously proving that you don't (as you have admitted that you don't in the past).


But indeed, do continue.

1.) I know. But I can't prove that you do play tennis, so we're at a stalemate. I used a ridiculous premise to highlight how ridiculous your premise is. This is an internet board, no one is obligated to believe anything you say, and I don't believe anything that you say, period. So, like I said I invented the internet and you play high level tennis. Mere words on the internet, comprende?

2.) I don't have to play tennis to be a fan. Why is that so hard for you to understand? But even if I did I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that total strangers had to accept what I said as gospel. Another illogical thought process.

Or,

Are you saying that because you "play tennis", I'm supposed to beleive you?

 

[namelessone]

Borg on clay a fairly one dimensional player (Honestly, Borg was really good on clay, but man he was booooring to watch)

So he was one dimensional because he was boring to watch?

And who had multidimensional on clay in Borg's era? Vilas? Panatta? Connors?

 

[NamRanger]

1.) I know. But I can't prove that you do play tennis, so we're at a stalemate. I used a ridiculous premise to highlight how ridiculous your premise is. This is an internet board, no one is obligated to believe anything you say, and I don't believe anything that you say, period. So, like I said I invented the internet and you play high level tennis. Mere words on the internet, comprende?

2.) I don't have to play tennis to be a fan. Why is that so hard for you to understand? But even if I did I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that total strangers had to accept what I said as gospel. Another illogical thought process.

Or,

Are you saying that because you "play tennis", I'm supposed to beleive you?

You know it's funny that you continue to dodge my assertion that you cannot possibly criticize me for calling Nadal one dimensional when you have admitted that you do not play tennis, and I know I do for a fact (and can prove that by providing evidence that I do). The person that both watches and plays tennis has more credentials than the person that simply just watches. It's really that simple.



I'm not saying I'm right, or you're wrong, what I'm saying is that I find it hilarious that you think I can't tell what a one dimensional tennis player is when it is so painfully obvious that you don't play the game at all, and I (among a very select few on the General Forums) actually do. You are questioning my analytical abilities as a tennis player / tennis viewer, and yet you only watch the game (and in fact, only watch one player on top of that). It's just absolutely astounding that you actually believe you can legitimately criticize me.

 

[NamRanger]

So he was one dimensional because he was boring to watch?

And who had multidimensional on clay in Borg's era? Vilas? Panatta? Connors?

Bingo. Same with Nastase. Watch them, you'll be pretty surprised. The point is that you can be a multi slam champion while also being one dimensional. Or are you saying that's not possible? Because I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[TheTruth]

1) You stated that I lied about Djokovic's sudden surge of fans

2) I proved you wrong with facts (and links to boot!)

No, you didn't. That stuff you mentioned about Djokovic is old news. OK. The issue was his newly increased fan base. Where's the links for that? No, you tried to spin it and convinced yourself in your own mind, but I can't believe anybody would believe what you said. 3) You respond by saying that I am just picking a fight, when you were the one who wants to pick the fight with me because I simply called Nadal one dimensional.

Nam. You've been doing this for years. Just admit it.

So.... how am I being illogical and ranting here? I'm pretty sure you're just ticked because I called Nadal one dimensional, but that could be just me. I dunno. I am enjoying beating you up and down this forum though proving you wrong time and time again.

That is hilarious. I would never consider you giving anyone a beatdown. I'm sorry, I don't consider you very bright at all.

Furthermore, you sound very juvenile talking about giving people beatdowns. How old are you, "Tennis Pro"?

Anyway. Good night. I have to go to work in the morning. It's been fun exposing your true nature.

 

[NamRanger]

That is hilarious. I would never consider you giving anyone a beatdown. I'm sorry, I don't consider you very bright at all.

Furthermore, you sound very juvenile talking about giving people beatdowns. How old are you, "Tennis Pro"?

Anyway. Good night. I have to go to work in the morning. It's been fun exposing your true nature.

You must have a very vague memory because I've given you many of them before (same with Nadal_Freak and previous Nadal trolls, along with gj011, Clyde, and many others).


What true nature? The fact that I like to pick on Nadal trolls like you who take offense to everything? LOL.


Ok, let me put it plain and simple for you.

1) Novak was a jackass before

2) Novak stopped being said jackass

3) Suddenly there is a huge surge of Novak fans


Coincidence that when Novak starts winning and acts like a good person, that he becomes suddenly popular? WOW. 2+2 is 4!

 

[namelessone]

Oh my god.


1) Djokovic in an interview clearly stated that he ABUSED a medical timeout against his friend Gael Monfils at the USO.

2) Djokovic stated that he was in control of a match that he was getting completely pummeled in. Clearly he wasn't joking either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SdfhhYJsJ8

3) Djokovic ragged on the USO crowd when clearly he had an issue with what Roddick said. There was absolutely no reason to provoke the crowd; if he had an issue with Roddick, he could have easily taken it into the locker room. Instead, he acts like a total fool and openly provokes a crowd that is notorious for being hostile.

4) Djokovic used to clearly break the time limit rule ON PURPOSE in order to ice his opponent. That is cheating and unsportsmanlike all at the same time. Not to mention Djokovic also used to clearly abuse the injury timeout. Taking into consideration that he openly admitted that he did it before, it's not a stretch to believe he wouldn't do it again.

5) Djokovic had an obviously over inflated ego after his AO win, thinking that he was gonna win everything in sight from that point on, and that Federer was basically non-existent. Guess how that turned out for him?


You honestly don't watch much tennis outside of Nadal if you think Djokovic wasn't viewed as a total jackass from 2007 to early 2009ish.

Oh, here's another link just to prove how much of a poor sportsman Djokovic really was

http://www.johnfmurray.com/index.php/news-events/gamesmanship-cheating-tennis

He OPENLY admits to abusing medical timeouts because he wasn't fit enough. Seriously? That's not a jackass? LOL.

LAWL, Djoker is my second fav player.

He was a bit younger and he was more in a brash mood, challenging the establishment. I never understood why people were ripping into him for this cause he was young and having some fun while at the top of his game, early in 2008.

Plus he had health issues that people doubted and he lashed out in some interviews for those that doubted him.

Once he matured a bit and got his health issues resolved he turned out into a fine player.

But I don't agree that most people viewed him as a jackass from 2007 and 2009. Maybe Roddick and Fed fans but most tennis fans liked his personality.

 

[TheTruth]

You know it's funny that you continue to dodge my assertion that you cannot possibly criticize me for calling Nadal one dimensional when you have admitted that you do not play tennis, and I know I do for a fact (and can prove that by providing evidence that I do). The person that both watches and plays tennis has more credentials than the person that simply just watches. It's really that simple.



I'm not saying I'm right, or you're wrong, what I'm saying is that I find it hilarious that you think I can't tell what a one dimensional tennis player is when it is so painfully obvious that you don't play the game at all, and I (among a very select few on the General Forums) actually do. You are questioning my analytical abilities as a tennis player / tennis viewer, and yet you only watch the game (and in fact, only watch one player on top of that). It's just absolutely astounding that you actually believe you can legitimately criticize me.

I don't even think you're bright. Why would I listen to you?

You don't know who I watch, oh illogical and presumptuous one.

Anyway you have to trust someone's logic in order to believe them, and as I said, I see you as illogical, a spin doctor, who imo, spouts garbage, and starts internet fights. So no, just no, I don't believe anything you say, nor do I agree with you on any issue.

So forgive me, but I pity the fool who believes anything that you say.

 

[TheTruth]

You must have a very vague memory because I've given you many of them before (same with Nadal_Freak and previous Nadal trolls, along with gj011, Clyde, and many others).


What true nature? The fact that I like to pick on Nadal trolls like you who take offense to everything? LOL.


Ok, let me put it plain and simple for you.

1) Novak was a jackass before

2) Novak stopped being said jackass

3) Suddenly there is a huge surge of Novak fans


Coincidence that when Novak starts winning and acts like a good person, that he becomes suddenly popular? WOW. 2+2 is 4!

They were all better posters than you.


You don't have the brain capacity to give me a verbal beatdown, as your posts show. Maybe a follower will join you in your quest, but I doubt it will be a respected poster on this board.

But, thanks for proving my point. You like to go around starting internet fights and take pride in naming your "victims." Big man.

There's your true nature. Exposed, again.

 

[NamRanger]

LAWL, Djoker is my second fav player.

He was a bit younger and he was more in a brash mood, challenging the establishment. I never understood why people were ripping into him for this cause he was young and having some fun while at the top of his game, early in 2008.

Plus he had health issues that people doubted and he lashed out in some interviews for those that doubted him.

Once he matured a bit and got his health issues resolved he turned out into a fine player.

But I don't agree that most people viewed him as a jackass from 2007 and 2009. Maybe Roddick and Fed fans but most tennis fans liked his personality.

Having fun?


So openly admitting that he cheated is having fun? You are simply dodging the issue and excusing everything he did by saying that he was young. I'm sorry; you don't openly tell everyone that the current world #1 is a non-factor anymore (especially one that had previously just won 3 slams the year before). That's pure arrogance. That's not "brash." That's stupidity.


He also openly provoked a hostile crowd for no apparent reason just because he was unhappy with some comments by an American player. Seriously; there was absolutely zero reason to provoke the crowd like that. He sorely paid the price too, as 99.9% of the crowd was extremely hostile against him in his SF against Federer.


Challenging the establishment? He said he was in control of a match that he was getting utterly beat down in. That's not "challenging" the establishment at all. That's called being dumb and arrogant. A.k.a., being a total jackass.



Even if we excuse some of his "unwise" decisions, there is no way to spin his cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct with the injury timeout abuses. That is inexcusable; period. He even openly admitted it in several interviews. You simply cannot defend that, and that's why alot of people did not like him, and questioned many of his injury timeouts / retirements.

 

[namelessone]

Bingo. Same with Nastase. Watch them, you'll be pretty surprised. The point is that you can be a multi slam champion while also being one dimensional. Or are you saying that's not possible? Because I'm pretty sure it is.

On Nastase I agree.

Panatta was mostly a S&V'er from what I've seen, how is that being multidimensional?

Borg was boring on clay because they used small rackets and the rallies were frequently 30+ shots with a slow pace(there is a 80 shot clip on youtube). But Borg could do everything on this surface but he realized that consistency was the way to go on clay.

If Borg lived in this era with modern rackets he would be like Nadal on clay. Ruthless.

 

[NamRanger]

They were all better posters than you.

Thanks for proving my point. You like to go around starting internet fights.

That's your true nature. Exposed, again.

gj011, a poster who openly insults everyone that isn't a fan of Novak Djokovic.


Nadal_Freak, a guy who knew nothing about tennis and yet tried to convince everyone that he was right (when he clearly knew nothing about tennis, it was very evident in many of his posts).


Clyde, decent poster for the most part. Up until the part where he stated that the Americans should have taken me out in the Vietnam war.


Yeah those guys were great posters.

 

[NamRanger]

On Nastase I agree.

Panatta was mostly a S&V'er from what I've seen, how is that being multidimensional?

Borg was boring on clay because they used small rackets and the rallies were frequently 30+ shots with a slow pace(there is a 80 shot clip on youtube). But Borg could do everything on this surface but he realized that consistency was the way to go on clay.

If Borg lived in this era with modern rackets he would be like Nadal on clay. Ruthless.

Panatta wasn't a go out there and serve you off the court S&V like Goran. He had to work his way into the net, which is pretty tough against a defender like Borg. Also, Panetta actually had alot of variety on clay. Watch him play.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Stop it. Djokovic just got the majority of his fans when he beat Nadal.

1,2, and 3 is a lie. But, it's no more than I expected from you.

Sorry to butt in, but that just isn't true. He got the majority of his fans in late 2007. Later he did like a jackass and that is the reason I personally was doubtful if he can truly become a top player, even though I still liked his game. Now after he's matured he's a lot more fun to watch.

 

[TheTruth]

OK, Nam. Have a pleasant evening. I finished my cigarette. See you tomorrow, same place, same time.

 

[TheTruth]

Having fun?


So openly admitting that he cheated is having fun? You are simply dodging the issue and excusing everything he did by saying that he was young. I'm sorry; you don't openly tell everyone that the current world #1 is a non-factor anymore (especially one that had previously just won 3 slams the year before). That's pure arrogance. That's not "brash." That's stupidity.


He also openly provoked a hostile crowd for no apparent reason just because he was unhappy with some comments by an American player. Seriously; there was absolutely zero reason to provoke the crowd like that. He sorely paid the price too, as 99.9% of the crowd was extremely hostile against him in his SF against Federer.


Challenging the establishment? He said he was in control of a match that he was getting utterly beat down in. That's not "challenging" the establishment at all. That's called being dumb and arrogant. A.k.a., being a total jackass.



Even if we excuse some of his "unwise" decisions, there is no way to spin his cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct with the injury timeout abuses. That is inexcusable; period. He even openly admitted it in several interviews. You simply cannot defend that, and that's why alot of people did not like him, and questioned many of his injury timeouts / retirements.

You're obsessed. I've stopped reading your posts since it's a waste of brain cells.

You need to let your hatred of Nadal go. See a shrink or something. Do something. I'm starting to fear for you.

 

[NamRanger]

You're obsessed. I've stopped reading your posts since it's a waste of brain cells.

You need to let your hatred of Nadal go. See a shrink or something. Do something. I'm starting to fear for you.

So talking about Novak's past history is hating on Nadal. Amazing. How you connected the two is beyond me.

 

[TheTruth]

Djoker was not being a jackass but he wasn't bowing down in awe of top players and actually had the stones to have a personality by doing impersonations and trying to have a cool and relaxed demenour out there.
I mean he was ripped for something his MOTHER said "the king is dead" about Fed.

He also had breathing issues and allergies but people were ripping into him for retiring cause of those even though it was CLEAR that they were affecting him PHYSICALLY.

Look at how he looks now that he has these things sorted out.

This is a true post.

 

[NamRanger]

This is a true post.

Oh yeah, Novak was totally dying against Monfils at the USO in 2005.


Not.


"These timeouts helped me a lot because he is still physically better prepared than me," Djokovic said. "I know for people watching the match that it is very irritating, but that is the only way I could continue to win."



Word for word. Basically Novak at the time was unfit, and he abused the injury timeouts in order to gain more time to recover. That is clearly abuse and unsportsmanlike conduct. And people wonder why Novak was hated on so much LOL.

 

[namelessone]

Panatta wasn't a go out there and serve you off the court S&V like Goran. He had to work his way into the net, which is pretty tough against a defender like Borg. Also, Panetta actually had alot of variety on clay. Watch him play.

And who could serve you off the court with wood rackets in that era?

Don't get me wrong, they could still get some amazing speeds when you consider the small sweet spot and heavyness of a wood racket but placement and use of particular types of spin were far more important.

Mcenroe for example, served smart, not hard.

 

[NamRanger]

And who could serve you off the court with wood rackets in that era?

Don't get me wrong, they could still get some amazing speeds when you consider the small sweet spot and heavyness of a wood racket but placement and use of particular types of spin were far more important.

Mcenroe for example, served smart, not hard.

Exactly. Panetta couldn't blow Borg off the court. He also couldn't just blindly S&V. He had to utilize the ENTIRE court to win, and he did just that. That's called being multi dimensional. Using the baseline, net, defense, offense, the whole package.

 

[Sentinel]

LMAO Why are you getting so defensive & why bring Fed into the conversation? Do you still cry at night because Fed smashed pretty much every Sampras record there is? :lol:

haha !! He's now a bit ashamed of being a Shampras fan

That's a bit of a trollish comment, wouldn't you agree? I bet you wouldn't want people to laugh at you when Nadal loses, right? Federer fans are tough, they can handle a loss.

"A bit of a trollish comment" from a very bitter person !!! btw where's his crony, sureshs ???

Djoker's gotta get tired eventually ....... right?

lol, one day ... one day ... but not today. Have to admit, his trainer and psychologist have really worked on him. Let's hope he can keep his toughness throughout the year.